City Council - Regular Meeting

We'll go ahead and adjourn the special meeting, and we will call to order our regular meeting for Tuesday, August 11th. Please call the roll.

Council Members Rohrabach? Here. Aquino? Here. Kozlowski?

Here.

Leary? Here. And Rathel? Here.

If you'll please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. And do we have any agenda updates this evening?

We have additional material on agenda item number six on your consent calendar. And I believe it was provided to members of the council and we have copies on the back table.

Thank you so much. And that takes us to business from the floor. I believe we have a couple speakers this evening.

You do, you have two requests to speak under this item, and as a reminder, this is the public's opportunity to address the council on matters that are not on the agenda. Speakers are generally limited to three minutes or less, so when you start, we'll start the timer for you. Our first speaker tonight will be Terry White, and Terry will be followed by Armando Bueno. So Terry. Okay, come on down. Oh, no, you're welcome. Yep, under the podium.

Is there a timer anywhere?

It's right in front of you. And there's one up on the wall too.

How are you all doing today?

Doing great. Thanks for coming out.

Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. You just tell me when my time starts or if I can say something before it starts. I don't know.

You can start now.

I can start now? Okay. Thanks a lot. I know I don't have much time. Mayor Rathel, City Council people, Rorbaugh, Kozlowski, Leary, and Aquino. My name is Terry Josh White. This is my very first time speaking at any City Council meeting. Thank you for having me. At the tender age of 22 plus 22, here I am, doing it for the first time. I'm here because I found a need over at Lemby Park. There's a basketball court that, let me just go off my notes, because there's not much time. Let me just say it like this. Lemby Park is in the heart of Folsom. If we had a public space in Folsom that were for white people only, there would be outrage in our city. But this idea, it's a threat to Folsom, the idea that would pull out this basketball court from under our children's feet and drive them away to these little neighborhood parks. I did investigate some of the little neighborhood parks that were suggested to me. One of them is along a very dangerous curvature of Riley Street, and I don't want to send pedestrians anywhere. into any kind of danger. Plus, most people that use Limby Park's basketball court, they use it at nighttime because of the light feature that's there. So I'm asking you guys here at City Council to stand with your city, to fight for our kids' rights, Pickleball and basketball can coexist. They can coexist. So please don't strike at the heart of diversity. Don't strike at our children. I really believe this would be spitting in the face of diversity and spitting in the face of our children. I know you guys have big hearts, so we're asking you to stand for our basketball court and not uproot this place of community, connection, and children. Thank you.

Thanks, Terry.

Our next speaker is Armando Bueno.

Hello, good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm here tonight just to address an escalating threat our communities across the country have been facing in regards to our safety, privacy, and our constitutional rights. The city is Folsom's reliance on flock safety and other AI-powered license plate reading cameras that have been installed across the city. We are told this technology is a precision tool, but before we can accept that claim, we should look at some numbers. According to Fox... public transparency portal on your website that you use. The most recent 30-day reporting period of Folsom recorded over 400,000 unique vehicle detections, over 232 searches, and 780 hot list hits. And Folsom retains this data for over 120 days. 121 to be exact um think about what this means this isn't simply a camera identifying a stolen car in the moment it creates a searchable record of vehicles traveling through our communities where they were detected when they were detected and what vehicle characteristics were detected at that time such as a scratch or a bumper sticker the city isn't operating in isolation Flock systems allows agencies to share and search data across a much larger network. Flock itself says it collects license plate images, vehicle characteristics, timestamps, and camera location information. The question whether or not the technology can ever help us solve a crime, of course it can. We've seen it be done. The question is whether the benefits justify creating this enormous database of innocent people's movements and whether Folsom's residents have adequate control over who can access it. And there is another serious problem. The accuracy. Phlox says its cameras accurately capture approximately 93% of license plates. That sounds impressive until you consider the scale. Phlox says its network processes more than 20 billion plate readings each month. Even taking Phlox's own numbers at face value, that implies more than a billion inaccurate readings across its network every month. And these aren't merely theoretical mistakes. The Institute of Justice has documented at least 27 cases in which ALPR errors contributed to innocent motorists being pulled over, detained at gunpoint, jailed, or otherwise subject to serious consequences. In nearly two-thirds of these cases, they were reviewed and officers reportedly drew their weapons before discovering that this was a mistake. We've also seen the danger in human misuse. Officers in multiple states have been fired or arrested for allegedly using these flock systems and other ALPR tracking systems to track their romantic partners, ex-partners, and other people that they've decided to track. In one recent case in Mooresville, North Carolina, a former officer allegedly accessed flock data 31 times to track her boyfriend's ex-wife. And this isn't just happening somewhere far away. This is happening close as well. We've realized that Roseville City Council has...

If you could make your final comments.

Okay. Well, right here, if I could finish up. Mountain View also has terminated its own contract with FLOC and many other cities such as Santa Cruz and many others. I urge this council to pause the program and conduct a... transparent public review of this, and if the sharing is constitutional safeguards and data retention, and if those safeguards cannot adequately protect Folsom residents, then I believe that contract should be terminated. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Excellent. Well, that will take us to scheduled presentations.

Okay, your first item this evening, item number one, is the City of Folsom Resolution of Commendation honoring the Folsom American 11U All-Stars Team for the 2026 State Championships. Team, come on down.

Who's gonna be in the middle? You wanna hold that there?

All right. Test, test, test. Nope. All right.

How about that? There we go. All right, now we'll be able to hear on the recording. So tonight we have a city of Folsom resolution of commendation honoring the Folsom American 11U All-Stars team as the 2026 state champions. Whereas the Folsom American 11U All-Stars team is comprised of players and coaches who demonstrated talent, sportsmanship, perseverance, and a commitment to hard work throughout the season. And whereas the team went undefeated through the District 54 and Section 4 tournaments before ultimate victory in the Northern California State Championship. And whereas by capturing the state championship, the Folsom American 11U All-Stars earned the official distinction of being the top 10, top team in the 9 to 11U age bracket across the entire Northern California region. And whereas the coaching staff providing outstanding leadership, mentorship, and dedication to guiding the team throughout their historic tournament run. And whereas the players competed with fine sportsmanship, teamwork, loyalty, and camaraderie, demonstrating true unity on and off the field. And whereas dedicated parent volunteers provided essential support behind the scenes, ensuring smooth operations on the fields and accurate score keeping for every contest. And now therefore be it resolved on behalf of the city council that high commendation and sincere congratulations are hereby extended to the Folsom American All-Stars team for their incredible championship season.

Congratulations guys.

Take a look at this guy in the white shirt right there waving his hand.

Awesome, thanks guys. Coach, would you like to say something?

Yeah.

All right, thank you once again. Mayor Reithel, we have two gifts for you. We have a Folsom American Little League All-Star hat signed by all the players and coaches. And we also have a baseball. that is also signed by the coaches and the players. Maybe we should have done this first. But yes, we just want to thank everybody for having us here. We were here exactly a year ago. We did not win the state championship last year, but we vowed we'd be back, and here we are, and we did it. So we went as far as we could and won the Northern California State Championship. Thank you.

Thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

We even got to host the all-star tournament here at Folsom. So we had the home team for the all-stars win right here at home. So it was pretty exciting. And if anybody got to make it out, it was great. All right, next up, we are moving to our consent calendar. Anyone have any items to pull this evening?

If there are no requests to speak, I can move adoption of the consent calendar. I'll second.

All right, we have a motion to second. Please call the roll.

Council members Aruba? Yes. Aquino? Yes. Kozlowski?

Yes.

Leary? Yes. And Rathel?

Yes. All right, that takes us to new business. Please call the next item.

Yeah, your first new business item this evening is number 20. This is a presentation of the community survey and civic dialogue results and proposed work plan by change.org representatives followed by staff directions.

Great, thank you, Mayor, members of the council. I'm actually kind of excited about this presentation. It's been interesting to be a little bit a part of seeing how this has transpired. We appreciate change.org for their partnership in this regard. I found it interesting as it started in the different phases, and we'll talk a little bit about this, to get the initial ideas out there. And then when it went to the period where we had the breakout sessions on the virtual meeting, I really appreciated how the change.org staff moderated that. Mayor Rathel had an opportunity to introduce the discussion and everyone went into their breakout rooms. And so tonight we have the opportunity to kind of review those survey results. And so just with that in mind, I'll turn the time over to Elijah with Change.org. Appreciate you being here.

Thanks, Brian. Thanks. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Elijah. I'm with Change.org. As Brian has said, we've been running for the last couple of months a local civic dialog. So I'm going to talk a little bit about what we've done. and what we'd like to propose to do next with the city. And let me just start by saying we're a nonprofit, we're nonpartisan, and everything that we've done and that we're discussing potentially doing with the city comes at no cost at all to the city. So our Civic Dialogues platform identifies a cross section of residents that agree across political differences. So we do this in two stages. First, we have a civic input stage. We launched a website that allowed any resident of Folsom to submit any idea that they had for positive change for the city, and then to vote on the ideas that other residents had submitted. And the goal is to identify shared goals that bridge across political differences. We then conducted a civic dialogue, as Brian was saying. We recruited a representative panel of residents to a live two-hour dialogue in order to identify common shared ground policies. Excuse me. We had great participation in the first round. Over 1,000 residents used the platform. They submitted 430 ideas and voted 68,000 times on those ideas. Some of these ideas were less expansion, more focus on infrastructure, increase the developer fees to cover the cost of new infrastructure. One idea that was particularly that received universal support was to fix the highway traffic and east bedwell issues. As we looked through ideas that came in, we looked at ideas that were bridging, so ideas that had support across different groups. And the area that rose to the top was growth and development. So we constructed a mini public. This was, as I said, a two hour long dialogue. We had 168 representatives attend. We constructed the public to be representative in terms of age, sex, race, and party. We prepared briefing materials and briefing video for people who participated. And then, as Brian was saying, we broke into small groups during the two-hour dialogue to discuss these policies in depth. The core that we're looking for, that we look for, is something called bridging. So this is a particular policy that has support by a super majority support across different political groups, so across Democrats, Republicans, and independents. So a policy with an ADA bridging 88% purging score is one that has a minimum of 88% across those political groups. So through the dialogue, we tested which principles people care about. So when it comes to growth and infrastructure, people care that new growth pays its own full-time costs. People care about attracting amenities and prioritizing infill where possible. People care about spending more on the maintenance backlog and on an audit before any new revenue. There was not supermajority support on short-term debt for urgent repairs. So these were the 14 policies that achieved consensus. I won't read through all of them, but they fell across three different buckets, ways to prioritize infrastructure investment, ways for growth to cover its costs, and areas to raise new revenue to pay for infrastructure. And we are now proposing to continue to work. So we've gone through these two stages already. We're proposing a third step of supporting implementation of these policies. So priority one that we've identified are five policies that we think are actionable, material, and are fully within the city's authority to act. So these would be publishing an infrastructure stack, priority stack based on private staff data, publishing the road repaving schedule, developing a small business retention strategy, creating a strategy for partnerships and sponsorships of public land, and creating a system for economic development incentives. And the type of work we're proposing, doing our research, policy writing, prototypes, any sort of kind of outsource policy work that we can do to support the city. And then if there is a desire, we can get into the additional policies that were recommended. Again, I won't go through all these in depth, but we're happy to help with anywhere that it would be helpful to support policy development. And I will leave it at that. Happy to answer questions, and I appreciate your time.

Questions, Council Member Kozlowski?

Yeah, I have a question. So some of the policy suggestions, recommendations, however you want to couch it, are things that we have considered many, many times previously. And the survey results are not particularly surprising in terms of people's interest in change, or in particular changes. So was there a component of this where the actionable thing or a new idea was uncovered? And particularly if you go back a slide maybe. Actually, go forward one more, go back to right there. So fee schedule to full cost recovery. We have addressed that topic in public setting here at the city council no less than four times while I've been on the council. And in each instance, we've had to make a value judgment about how much we could actually recover from certain types of costs that the city incurs for public amenities, for the use of public amenities. Right. So I'm wondering, was there some depth to considering what specific change we could make at this point? Because we have tried to push the edge of that many times already, and I'm just wondering if, you know, how far have we gotten along that road, you know?

Well, I mean, I guess one of the things that I would add to this, and if you look at the priority one list as well, one of the things that occurred during this is we didn't kind of impose or direct the conversation. We didn't let them know like, Hey, here's what we're working on. We just want to see if you're okay with that. What I like about this is it was, it came out of them without us leading them on. And so in some ways I see this as a, the things that the council has been talking about that were coming into kind of this territory that were closer than we thought in some regard of what the community is wanting us to look at. When we look at infrastructure improvements, providing lists, when are things going to happen? The fact of the fee schedule, I bet in many ways, I wasn't in any of the breakout sessions, but I would assume that they were not provided any information that, hey, did you know? over the last year or so we've done multiple things to actually uh improve the the fee schedule so that there's more cost recovery so i think that i think it was really healthy dialogue and i think that's something that we can build on going forward to communicate with and i think that's kind of like the next steps Now we have this feedback, how do we actually deliver something? Because I found that typically you don't get credit for things that you don't let people know that you did, right? I mean, there was that one time when I did what my wife asked, but I didn't tell her. And so she didn't give me credit for doing it. So now it's to the point where we have to listen. And now it's our job, the city staff job, to communicate that by our website and listing the projects. starting a process and a procedure with all our infrastructure projects that we're putting signs out in advance of the project to let people know what's coming where they can get information and so that's kind of building on uh more information being shared so that people are not at least feeling that they don't have the information that they want

I'm encouraged by it validating some of the things that we've spent time focused on. I just was curious if some real jewel of wisdom had come from the discussion that we can literally take action on straight away.

I mean, I think our... I mean to what Brian was saying things like the infrastructure you know publishing the infrastructure priority stack the road repaving schedule uh I I think that it's within this it's as far as my understanding is what's in the council's authority to do things like small like like launch of small business retention strategy I think the the um you know the the what what what came into priority I think are definitely things that that are uh that are not new. I don't think we're claiming that these are new, but I think are kind of the options that we identified on the table for when it comes to, yeah.

The engagement is the huge win, so it's good work. I just was curious if there was something that really stood out as a result, but this is fantastic, thank you.

Vice Mayor, any questions, comments?

I think this is affirming, actually.

Great.

Council Member O'Leary.

Yeah, I agree. I think these are long lists of things that we're pretty well aware of. But I am curious if there was an identification of how long the people had lived here that were involved in this process. Like, was there a range? Some of them have been here years. Some of them have been here 40 years. because that kind of guide the discussion between what might be something new that we could address versus something that's been a long-term problem yeah i mean we didn't we didn't have any information on yeah on on how long folks have been here i think what what was um what was i think the most uh uh

Probably the most significant difference is north and south of 50 in terms of what that means for growth and for infrastructure. And we did have representation across town like that. But we didn't have any sense of how long folks have lived here now.

And about how was the split between North of 50 and South of 50?

We know that people were there. It was not an explicit question, but based on analyzing the transcripts, we know that there were folks from both sides. Yeah.

Okay. I like detailed data, so thank you for answering that.

I know there were at least six people who explicitly identified themselves in the transcript.

Okay. Thank you.

Council Member Aquino.

Well, I appreciated the report and the agenda packet. I thought it was very interesting. And I will say, apparently somebody suggested that we invest our reserve fund in Bitcoin. And I was happy to see that the majority of respondents strongly disagreed with that suggestion. So that was on a couple different pages. I got a kick out of that. So thank you.

If only we would have done it 10 years ago, our unfunded liability problems would be gone.

Oh, good. Yeah, so I was happy to participate in this process. I got kicked out for the breakout sessions, but I was great. I was very happy to see the report. And I do think the quality of the data, after you give people some information and try to give them some background of where these are coming from, I feel pretty confident. that we can now take some of these suggestions and bring them to a larger audience and say, let's talk about these some more, let's get some more feedback, let's get some staff analysis. And so I appreciate the offer really on the next steps of, because to me, our best ideas aren't us coming up with them on our own, they're stealing them from other cities and other municipalities and things that have been tested out. in other local democracies that we can adopt and run with and have them give value to our residents. So I like the research priorities going on to the next step.

Yeah. So to kind of highlight that, there's a couple of things. So Elijah and his team have indicated that they would like to continue to help us, you know, with this effort. You know, now we have kind of the priority one and priority two. And, you know, we've mentioned, you know, some of the situations that have we have with lack of resources. So I'm one to say like, oh, someone's willing to help us. uh so if it's okay with the council we would like to continue to work with them to see how we can continue to foster these ideas implement some of the things that they that have been mentioned and then another thing is uh when we started this there was some of the conversation that this is great that they're willing to help us but is it just a marketing ploy so they can say that they worked with the city of folsom and i think some of the conversation was well let's see if we're satisfied with kind of the work product that was put out and so one of the questions that we put in the staff report is the council comfortable for them including us as a city that they've worked with because at the beginning that wasn't necessarily one of those things so two questions just to follow up we're seeking direction from the staff is it okay for us to continue to work with change.org to see how we can bring this more to a solid conclusion how can we can put this into a practical sense in implementation and then also is it okay for them to list us as cities that a city that they worked with can you go back one slide too just so we can see the types of support there i think was helpful to me to understand what you guys were offering absolutely

i have a question how much experience have you had in policy writing you know you put examples up there model resolutions and and staff reports are you also looking at things like changes in codes or other sections of our documents that guide how the city makes decisions and what decisions what parameters we have for that decision making

So we're, you know, we have a we have a policy shop that that that handles this work for us. And we're happy to do to take on pretty much anything of that nature. So I think we, you know, so so we so so the answer, I think the short answer is yes.

But how much like what's your length of experience? And where did your policy shop people gain their experience?

Most of them are from local government. So, yeah, like the head of our, you know, people like, you know, chief of staff to mayor, chief of staff to within different city departments, that sort of experience.

And within the state of California or?

I'm within the state of California, but our team is distributed across the country.

Right.

Yeah.

because there are different state laws that impact all of the things that we get to do or not do, so. Of course, of course. Okay, well, thank you.

If you just wanna take a little straw poll and go down the line, I'm yes and yes.

Okay.

Me too.

Yes, yes, I'm yes, yes. Is that a yes, yes? oh fine fine okay I'm fine all right we're five yes yeses okay thank you so much all right Elijah appreciate you taking the time coming out tonight appreciate all the work you guys put in to help us listen to the residents and and make sure our priorities are aligned of course thank you so much I appreciate it please call the next time

OK, your next item is item number 21. This is the city of Folsom CFD number 22A, also known as Folsom Heights. Before each and either two items, resolution number 11679, this is a resolution approving a proposed boundary map and declaring the intention to form the CFD. And resolution number 11680, this is also a resolution of the council declaring the necessity for incurring bonded indebtedness in the city of Folsom CFD number 22A.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Stacey Timani, Chief Financial Officer. Tonight's presentation is the first steps in the formation of CFD 22A. For background information, back in 2018, at the request of landowners within the Folsom Plan Area, Community Facilities District number 22 was formed. No debt has been issued and no building permits have been pulled, and so the landowners have now requested that the city terminate CFD number 22 and form a new CFD that'll be called 22A. The CFD is being formed in accordance with the Melrose Act and also in accordance with city policies. The proposed CFD 22A will include three improvement areas. They'll have a standard numbering structure to be known as improvement area one, two, and three. And having multiple improvement areas allows the infrastructure and services to be funded in a phased and proportional manner as the development occurs. The CFD will generate special tax revenue to fund backbone infrastructure and ongoing services. These could include transportation, water, recycled water, wastewater, and drainage improvements, parks, parkways, and open space, and also the payment of specific plant infrastructure fee program obligations. In addition, the CFD funds ongoing maintenance and public services, such as landscape corridors and open space, street lighting, medians and entry features, stormwater management, long-term repair and replacement, and also a portion of police, fire, and emergency services. The next slide here is on the structure of the special tax. There are two primary components. We have the facility special tax. This will be levied through fiscal year 2086-87. It will increase annually by 2%, and the special tax ranges from approximately $2,000 to about $3,700 per residential unit. The second component is the services special tax. It's levied and collected until the transition event occurs, and I'll review what a transition event means on the next slide. This will adjust annually based on the CPI with a range of a minimum of 2%, not to exceed 4%. And the services special tax ranges from approximately 117 to $137 per residential unit. As mentioned on the previous slide, the CFD will have a transition event. Once all bonds are repaid and the administrative costs are satisfied, then 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 plus the services special tax. And the reason for implementing a transition event is so that we can provide some funding in the future in addition to any pay-as-you-go funds that we'll have on hand. And this will be used for replacement and rehabilitation of the infrastructure that will then be about 30 years old. This combined tax will then increase by the CPI a minimum of 2% each year and a max of 4%. With this item tonight, the council is being asked to approve the boundary map, and that includes the improvement areas. The proposed development plan for each improvement area within CFD number 22A includes the following. For improvement area one, you have a total of 262 lots. Improvement area two, 268 lots. And improvement area three has three non-residential lots for a total of 533. And here you have a picture of the boundary map, including those three improvement areas. This is on the east side of the Folsom plant area bordering El Dorado County. So tonight we are asking that the city council take action to approve these initial steps in the formation process. The first resolution 11679 approves the boundary map and declares the intention to form CFD number 22A. And then resolution number 11680 declares the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for two of the improvement areas and calls for a public hearing, which will occur on September 22nd. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff this evening?

No question, but just a comment. I mean, it's interesting. This dovetails nicely with the, with the comments in the last item about development paying for itself and not just for the initial infrastructure, but ongoing, you know, maintenance and replacement. So very interesting.

Absolutely. Yeah. Some of those things were things we were working on for sure. And we've been, uh, you know, this is the second one now, right. That we're getting the special services tax in there. Any other comments?

Question. The three non-residential lots, are those commercial lots? Commercial. And do they pay the same rate as the residential lots or a different rate?

They pay different rate. Yeah, they have a separate improvement area. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I'll move. Do we need a public comment? Do we need to open a public hearing or no? No. Nope. Nope.

I'll move resolution 11679. Second.

Please call the roll.

Council Members Rorbaugh? Yes. Aquino?

Yes. Kozlowski? Yes. Leary?

Yes. And Rathel?

Yes.

I'll move Resolution 11680. Second.

Please call the roll.

Council Members Rorbaugh? Yes. Aquino? Yes. Kozlowski? Yes. Leary? Yes. And Rathel? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Please call the next item.

Okay, your next item is item number 22. This is resolution number 11686, authorizing the city manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement with Lakeside Church in the amount of $7.1 million for the purchase of an approximately 6.69 acre lot at the northeast corner of East Bidwell Street and Oak Avenue Parkway in appropriation of funds from that Folsom Housing Fund number 238.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the City Council, Pam Johns, your Community Development Director. As the Clerk mentioned, this item before you this evening is Another recommendation to utilize the city's housing fund to purchase a property that is designated in the city's housing element for housing purposes. And I'm going to spend about 10 minutes just giving some background and walking through how we got here this evening. The site is currently owned by Lakeside Church, and as described, it says northeast corner, it's kind of at an angle, so it's really on the corner of Oak Avenue and East Bidwell, out in front of Lakeside Church. The property was recently created because there were several parcels owned by the church in and around the existing facility, and they went through some lot line adjustments and parcel mergers to clean up the property that they've owned on the site for some time with the idea of creating a parcel that could be sold and ultimately fund some improvements that they wanna do and expansion that they wanna do of the church campus over time. So in the city's general plan, this property is designated as professional office and has the East Bidwell mixed use overlay, which allows for also to have multifamily residential development. The zoning on the site consistent with the general plan is the business professional designation with a planned development overlay, which means essentially you have to master plan the site at any point in the future. And then the housing element notably identifies this property as one of the city's available sites to meet our regional housing needs. And I think we've had a lot of conversations about that at the city council over time, but it assumed approximately 20 units of lower income housing potential on this site. Now, as you're all familiar, the city doesn't do land development ourselves, but if someone were to come through and proposed market rate multifamily housing or non-residential development on this site. That is certainly within the rights of the property, but the city would have to determine that we still have enough land to meet our future needs. And so we have started as a strategy looking at the sites throughout the city that are identified in our housing element to determine if there's an advantage given that we have robust housing funds, to purchase these sites and then figure out the right partner for these sites moving forward. And so this site went on the market in early June just recently and was listed for sale with a request for offers to be submitted on July 15th. We talked with the City Council in closed session as is required to have any negotiation of real property discussions and the City Council directed us to submit an offer on the property. The owner received a total of 12 offers on the property on July 15th and July 16th. 10 of the offers were from affordable multi-family housing developers. After, well, I'll back up real quick and talk about this, but after the owner received all of the applications, they did reach out to the city and indicate their interest in working with us for a variety of reasons, and so we then started some negotiations and conducted an appraisal, and I'll tell you a little bit more about that. But I want to talk... I want to talk about why we get involved in any of the potential site purchases for future housing. We have in our adopted housing element many goals, policies, and programs that support this kind of request. In fact, policy H-17 directs the staff to study the purchase of land for affordable housing so that the city can look at exactly what type of housing might meet our needs, whether it's senior housing or housing for special needs or student housing, et cetera, et cetera. And recently, the city council directed us to look at two other sites that I think are successful examples of how the city is utilizing the housing funds. The first one is the Persever and Coloma site, which is approximately one acre in size. And we partnered with Habitat for Humanity to complete a build of 10 for sale affordable housing units. And those are now all occupied and certainly something that we've heard a lot of positive feedback from the community about. We also recently got direction from the city council to purchase a two acre site that is adjacent to the city's corporation yard within the historic district. We had an application for a high density multi-family project on that site. And that is something that is just the nature of housing laws now. We have very little discretion over some of the housing that can get built in our city, with or without the city's approval, depending on the type of housing. And so we're paying close attention to key locations and the potential impact on our historic district in particular. There's a lot of legislation that we've been tracking and engaging in to make sure that we're protecting our historic district and the type of development that we see in that area. So we are wrapping up that purchase. I think we closed on that last week. and expect that in the future we will talk about what affordable housing gets built on that site in conjunction with the city's master planning of the corp yard. So nothing in the relative near term until we relocate the corp yard, but it allows us to purchase and hold and do thoughtful master planning of that site. For this particular property that is the subject of tonight's action, there is also a general plan land use policy 3.1.8 that talks about a college district. And this site is strategically located adjacent to Los Rios Community College site. And what that policy says is that the city encourages A LOT OF USES AROUND AND WITHIN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS TO SUPPORT MORE OF A COLLEGE DISTRICT FEEL AND THAT INCLUDES HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING FOR STUDENTS, FACULTY AND STAFF AROUND THE COLLEGE. SO WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS A REALLY PRIME SITE TO CONSIDER SOME UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES AND POTENTIALLY ADVANCE THE COLLEGE DISTRICT THAT IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE GENERAL PLAN. I mentioned state housing laws encouraging higher density housing in particular areas specifically around transit and services and really limits local control and discretion over those projects. This is a key site and as we discussed with city council in our direction to proceed with an offer on this site, that the purchase of this site allows us more control over the type of project, the timing of the project, and the partnership. We get to choose to do community outreach. We get to choose to have community meetings at the appropriate time in the future for some type of affordable housing on this site. So at the bottom, I don't want to go into too much detail on this table, but it shows, you know, we went over this with the city council at our annual review where we talk about the progress that we're making towards partnering with developers to provide housing at income levels for, or at all income levels in the city. We certainly have met and exceeded our above moderate housing levels that are identified for the entire planning period. The moderate, we still have a lot of work to do, and then certainly lower income household needs are still very high. The housing fund that we're talking about and recommending utilizing for this site purchase was established back in 2013, and this is an inclusionary housing ordinance that says either for single family development of 10 units or more, you either need to develop a portion of single family affordable housing within your project, or you pay an in lieu fee, for the city to work on programs and partnerships for development of affordable housing outside of that new development area. And this is very common. It is not easy to build affordable housing. Not everybody does it. It requires a lot of expertise. And so it is a solution that most jurisdictions in California use is to create an option to pay an in lieu fee. And then we collect those monies, and we are the stewards of making sure that we're implementing that in a way that meets the city's needs. So we have housing programs. One of our most popular housing programs is our Seniors Helping Seniors program, where we help seniors stay in their homes by doing improvements FOR LOWER INCOME SENIORS AND WE HAVE DONE THAT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. IT'S VERY POPULAR WITHIN THE CITY. MOST OF THE HOUSING FUNDS ARE USED FOR LONG-TERM LOW INTEREST LOANS. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ALMOST $14 MILLION HAVE BEEN USED OVER THAT LAST PERIOD TO BUILD ABOUT 550 AFFORDABLE UNITS IN SIX DIFFERENT MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THAT ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. The City Council also approved the use of $625,000 for that Habitat for Humanity land gift. and then approved the use of $1.5 million, $1.55 million recently for that approximate two-acre purchase off of Leda-Storf extension down by the corp yard. The current housing fund unencumbered balance is approximately $22 million. This is a key location that obviously has a lot of market popularity. There was interest, as I'll restate, 10 affordable multifamily builders to purchase this site and likely to do development in the near term. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. What I'm saying is that the city has very little control over that type of development. And we frankly have a lot of traffic impacts and other issues to deal with in this area. And by the city purchasing the property, it gives us the ability to control the timing of that development in the future. It may be after we have an interchange. It might be after certain improvements are completed. It may be that we get an opportunity then to really vet the partnerships on this property and see about the student housing and our faculty housing on this site. But that gives the city council and the city, the community, the opportunity to provide input about that into the future. And so when the property, I want to finish that and then talk just about the site purchase before concluding here. So if we purchase this site and we control the timing of it, we are going to be coming back to the city council in September with a housing workshop where we're about to conclude, you know, our current eight-year housing cycle wraps up in about two years, and then we'll be planning for the next year. eight-year housing cycle, and that's a mandate from the state. And we spend a lot of time with the community and with the City Council making sure that the solutions that are proposed in Folsom are right for Folsom. And we're going to be coming back to you as we wrap up the current cycle and saying, how would you like us, you know, we have several outstanding items that, you know, we should tackle or talk about, and we want to know what the City Council, how you want us to prioritize our efforts and our funds over the next two year period. And during that time, you might identify that this is one of the sites you want to start master planning, or you might identify there's another location that's a priority right now. And this will be something that we'll tackle in the next housing element cycle or, you know, or beyond. I mean, this this council gets to decide when we are the landowners. And you don't get to decide when we are not the landowners. You don't get to control the timing. You don't get to control the type and necessarily the design. There are some inputs, but they are limited. And so this is something that we're recommending as a good use of our housing funds, and especially at this key location. We'll get to make sure that we vet those options that are the priorities of the council and the community. So just logistically, I mentioned that this site was listed back in early June. The property was listed for $6.83 million, which is just over $1 million an acre. The call for offers was by July 15. I mentioned that there were a total of 12 offers, including the cities. You had directed us on July 14 to submit an offer, and we put in an offer. at asking the owner came back to the city and gave us the opportunity to match the um the uh offer at $7.1 million, which was rather than go back out and offer all of the 12 candidate purchasers the opportunity to submit highest and best offers, they gave the city the opportunity to match that offer and proceed. And so we identified that, yes, the city manager has the authority to do that negotiation, but it's contingent upon an appraisal. and ultimately the City Council action. And so that's what we're before you with tonight is the appraisal is attached to the property. The appraisal came in at $7 million, and we believe that $7.1 million is a fair price to pay for this, you know, the premium to pay to have control over THIS PROPERTY, THIS KEY LOCATION AND FIGURING OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH IT IN THE FUTURE. SO I'VE IDENTIFIED HERE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS, ALL OF WHICH I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, BUT I WANT TO FOCUS ON JUST THIS, THE THIRD BULLET SET, WHICH IS IF THE CITY OWNS THE LAND, WE CONTROL THE TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT. That's infrastructure readiness, timeliness relative to the city's other housing priorities, the type of affordable housing that we're going to do to meet the city's needs. It could be student housing, special needs housing, unique ownership opportunities. It could be senior housing. It's something really that the community gets to decide with the city council's leadership. And then the outreach. We will engage with the community per state law. That is not a requirement if this is owned by a third party. And then really identifying which partner we want to work with for that future affordable housing development at this key location. Because the city doesn't... build affordable housing we will need to partner with someone and so that will be part of the future discussion at whatever time the city council identifies this as a priority you know to move forward with so with that we're recommending that you approve the resolution one one six eight six which authorizes the city manager. to execute the purchase and sale agreement with Lakeside Church for that $7.1 million using qualifying housing funds. And so I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about this.

Thank you, ma'am. Questions for staff? We've got a couple of public comments tonight, but questions for staff first? Council Member Leary?

Thank you. There we go. So you had mentioned a college district. Is this land in, has it already been identified as a college district or does that only apply to the land that's owned by the existing college?

The district doesn't, the policy doesn't show a map, but it talks about all of the areas surrounding the Los Rios Community College, which includes this site. So it talks about services, everything in the general surrounding area surrounding the Los Rios Community College, and this is almost directly adjacent with the exception of the utility corridor that is between the properties.

And does that college district dictate a certain set of uses? I would imagine that it does include student housing, but it I would think of it more like an overlay.

I mean, it's the policy is, is not, you know, it's not really robust. It's similar to, um, you know, kind of the river district saying, Hey, there's this special area of the city that, that require, you know, warrants special consideration. And we ought to be thinking about how we coalesce uses in the future around this community college. And so it's not a, um, it's not a directives and specific policy like some of the other ones that you're used to seeing, but rather it talks about this general area and the opportunities that exist because of the relationship with the community college.

Okay, thank you. And then one thing we keep seeing on these charts about the low income housing, we're never gotten a big chunk taken out of the low and the very low. And so I would suspect that students might fall into those categories. But when the city purchases this, if that's the vote this evening, would we... we would choose from a variety of people who may bring forward offers, but we don't have to take offers, isn't that correct? So if somebody comes in with a product and we say, well, here's our criteria, what we really want to see is a product that benefits the city and is something that will fulfill the

Needs of this area and and I think that I would like to at least have that discussion in September I think that's a critical piece of making a decision about what we're going to do here Yeah, and I guess in terms of the discussion in September That is not to say that the City Council needs to make a decision about exactly what to do on this property but rather to identify what your priorities are in the near term and if this is a priority in the next two years then you as a council would be saying staff we'd like you to consider um you know the different options we have we could put out a request we could you know on the persepher site for habitat for humanity we went to the city council and adopted a resolution saying you know we're really trying to get for sale affordable housing that is a a product type we haven't been able to do and so you directed us to go and pursue put out a request for proposals to do for sale affordable housing and the council said i don't know if we're going to be able to do it we've tried before and we haven't but we did get two proposals and the award ultimately went to Habitat for Humanity. But that was the city council in multiple steps and phases. The first step was saying, hey, we have a vacant site that we no longer need and it seems like it would be a great site to be able to do a single family product that's compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. So you get to decide and we'll help you navigate exactly what your options are for how to do it. But I imagine it starts with what's the vision? And maybe you direct us to go and talk about, do some research, talk about, you know, what type of housing, what is the need? Talk to the, you know, Los Rios in more depth about, you know, what that looks like. So the September meeting is just to talk, at a higher level about all the different opportunities and priorities in the city, and that would include all the land that the city owns, or maybe you would have us look at the potential to purchase additional property that we don't currently own. So we'll give you those options, but there's no need to rush into a decision about what to do on this property. At whatever time you decide it's a priority, then you will tell us what kinds of things you want us to look at, and we'll bring options to you.

And there is not really a mandate, I guess, with the use of these low income funds to build a certain number of units. But I mean, that's clearly in the intent for the use of those dollars. So this doesn't necessarily need to be high density. It could be low density or only a portion of it could be. Housing is that.

By purchasing the site with housing funds, we are guaranteeing that there will be some type of affordable housing on this site in the future, but how much and what type and what density, there is some flexibility in that regard. And so we'll bring those options and considerations to you. The housing site's inventory for this site assumed approximately 200 units of multifamily housing in this location. if it were, again, the market would have allowed it to be developed for office or multifamily, but the city identified this as a good potential site in the future.

There's already a lot of high density for rent units along that corridor. Just one last question. And that is, you mentioned a transit corridor. But in the past, my understanding has been that transit-oriented areas are only based closer to the light rail stations. There is a regular bus route along there, and that could change in the future. Or the availability of micro-transit, because I know RT has been looking at that. And I don't know what difference that might make, but it would certainly, no matter what you put there, decrease the need for more traffic on East Bidwell.

Yeah, this is a designated transit route for RT. Yes, and you're right, some state laws focus more around transit stations like light rail stations, but a lot of them address transit stops and things that would qualify in this corridor as well.

Okay, thank you, Alice. Just one quick one to piggyback. So as you said, because we're using the housing fund, we're obligated to build some amount of affordable housing on this site, but it could be a mixed use site, for example. Absolutely. Yeah, okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I just kind of clarify. Without buying this property, we were essentially guaranteeing that one of the 10 probably multifamily affordable housing unit developers would have probably bought this property. And so we were almost, if we didn't do anything, almost guaranteeing that that would have gone forward. And unfortunately, we have limited controls on what private developers can do with entitled properties. um and one of the things that we can't control is timing which you articulated very well thank you so by purchasing this properly property we can control the timing and we can be more thoughtful about the process um we can look at the infrastructure and but there is a question in there i just kind of confirming right i mean yes we were looking at if we didn't do something it looked like what the 10 multi-family affordable offers that that was going to go that way we would not have control of the timing is that correct that's correct right so

and density bonus would have allowed 300 ish units.

That's correct. Importantly, density bonus also allows for the density to go below the density range on the site. So for example, the Habitat project as an entirely affordable housing, for sale housing product is below the density range on that site and that's allowed by state law because it's an affordable project. So it could be a for sale project or a condo townhouse type of product, it does allow for a lot of flexibility in that way. And I think as Mayor Aquino pointed out, it could be mixed use in that way or mixed density. So the city really gets to spend the time deciding what your vision is for that area with consultation from the community.

Council member Kozlowski, any questions? I do not have any questions. Thank you.

Can I do one more clarifying question? Of course. I think it was in your staff report, but by no way is purchasing this property, are we agreeing to a grading plan, a site plan? We have no plans at this moment to do anything with this property in the near future at this moment. That's correct.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, we're going to go ahead and move on to public comment. I've got three requests to speak so far. If anybody else would like to address the council on this item, please go ahead and bring up a blue card. First up, we've got Robert G. Holderness. Next up, we've got Chad Van Der Veen on deck.

Good evening, Mayor Rathel, Vice Mayor Rohrbach, and members of the City Council. Robert G. Holderness appearing this evening on behalf of Lakeside Church, a California non-profit corporation who is the seller in this case. I'm accompanied, by the way, with Chris Riley from New Castle Property Group, who is the broker of record. We're just down here to answer questions the Council may have and to reserve time, if necessary, to respond to comments. or criticisms of the sale that may arise in the public hearing. If you have no questions, I'll sit down and let the next fellow stand up and have it.

Any question for the seller tonight? No, thanks for coming down, Mr. Alderness.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

Next up, we've got Chad Vanderveen. And then on deck, Jack Copeland.

Good evening, everybody. Actually, thanks to Ms. John's presentation and the questions from Council Member Leary and Aquino, I don't have any concerns to address at the moment. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you, Mr. Van Der Veen. And Jack, come on down.

Yeah, I mean, I think we all want the affordable housing part. I don't think there's objection there. I didn't hear too much assurances about just the limitations. I think I heard something about like the highest offer would kind of get the most consideration. With all these data centers, I guess I would just want to know if Google, Meta, XAI have made any offers, anything related to BlackRock. I like to think... We're all kind of on the same page here of not wanting data centers. I mean, yeah, probably make some money, but it's just, yeah, I don't know. And I would like to, I guess, hear more about that, the limitations, what can be guaranteed, I guess, as far as the low-income part of that, because I think we all want that again. I think having guarantees would be important, at least to have a percentage, because just with that wiggle room, I know there's so many, you know, you have these data centers, they're just suing towns when you get over a certain point. You know, they're trying to make offers, and I just, I guess I would want to know more about that.

Thank you, Mr. Coppa.

Oh, yeah, thanks for getting my last name right. Most people don't.

all right with that we'll go ahead and close public comment and move on to any deliberation maybe a question for pam the zoning designation for that property wouldn't really allow for a data center or commercial use intensely like that right

I don't believe with that type of intensity, I was just trying to look it up real quick, but no, I don't believe it does. Business professional office is really not something that is like industrial or manufacturing or anything like that.

To focus the discussion, I'll go ahead and move adoption of resolution number 11686. I'll second it.

All right, please call the roll.

Council Members Rohrbach? Yes. Aquino? Yes. Kozlowski? Yes. Leary? Yes. And Rathel? Yes.

Thank you, ma'am. Congratulations. Or congratulations to the city. Or congratulations to future student housing. All right, please call the next item.

Okay, your next item is item number 23. This is resolution number 11690, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an MOU between the city of Folsom and Sacramento area fighter fighters local 522. Folsom Fire EMS professional unit and authorizing implementation of the single role ambulance transport system.

Chief, we're on a roll tonight. We might actually have a city council.

Oh, sorry.

Take your time.

And by eight.

Never talk to the pitcher when he's got a perfect game going.

Well, good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Vice Mayor, members of council, staff, community members, Jason Solak, fire chief. It is my pleasure tonight to present to you Resolution 11690 recommending the adoption of an MOU and the implementation of a proposed staffing model that we refer to as the single rule model. The actionable items tonight would be to establish officially the classifications of EMT or emergency medical technician, paramedic, to add four FTEs to the fire department's allocated position roster, reclassify 10 of our current firefighter positions to those classifications of EMT and paramedics, seven each, approve the fire EMS MOU and implement the single role transport system staffing model. I'd like to highlight that this model and this presentation dramatically changes the deployment model on how we staff our ambulances. And despite the fact that we're actually adding FTEs, we're doing so with no additional funding and a marginal FTE annual salary and benefit savings that you see there at $46,289. We currently have 37 positions. When we reclassify 10 of those firefighter positions, we end up with 27 firefighters and then the 14 single-role folks, seven EMTs and seven paramedics that you see there. And the culmination of this resolution and the staffing model provides the funding, again, with no additional funding to restore service to the engine that we browned out back in late October, early November. One of the other highlightable or mentionable items is while restoring suppression capabilities, we maintain our current level of transport service, we lower the per position cost, and it really does add flexibility for recruitment and improvement of development to our personnel, and I'll get into that a little bit here in a bit. So the staffing transition at a glance, again, our current model, 37 engines, and we use those firefighters to assist in the staffing of four engines, one truck, and three medic units. And in addition to those firefighters, we have engineers or drivers who operate those vehicles, and then we have supervisors or captains who staff. And so the 37 does not represent our total staffing that's specific to the firefighter. And again, the proposed model with 27 firefighters, seven paramedics, and seven EMTs, we're able to staff five engines, one truck, and three ambulances. And the changes for the community is that we are able to restore services to the fifth engine, we lower cost per position, we are asking for no additional funding, and that will allow us to dedicate two of our three ambulances to what we refer to as single role meaning that they will be staffed with EMTs and paramedics rather than firefighters. So the budgeted positions, again back in October, November, this council had to make some difficult decisions to provide fiscal stability and a sustainable model given the financial resources. Prior to those service reductions, we had 42 firefighters. We had one extra per shift, and that allowed us to help fill vacancies and provide relief staffing when we had vacancies and or extended or Increased use of leave five of those positions were eliminated in in late 2025 as part of those service reductions And so we currently have 37 firefighters and the way we got to five primarily was and again grateful for the city manager and the council's compassion is that part of the direction from council was is that you know we would like to do this if at all possible without actually eliminating actual positions filled by people so we ended up at 37 and So our current staffing model with the four engines, one truck and the three medic units requires 36 firefighters. And again, we ended up with 37 during the service reductions because we actually had 37 firefighters and there was not a desire to actually eliminate a position being filled by a body. The other five were vacant and so there was no impact to an actual individual. If we were to propose putting engine back in service under the current model, we would actually be asking for two FTE firefighter positions. And as you'll see in additional slides, the approximate cost of that with salary and benefits is the $419,980. And again, that would be ongoing general fund liability. Vacancies. I'll take a moment to pause and say that standing before you and telling you that we have 10 vacancies isn't normally something that I would take lightly. It's certainly not a best practice. This process has been an evolution. And when I first was appointed as interim in late October, early November, there was a discussion about a transition to the single role model. And as we started to evaluate and identify what that plan looked like, at the time it was going to be very difficult because trying to transition to a new model, hiring 14 additional people when we actually have a few extra bodies was really just not possible. OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR VARIOUS REASONS, PROMOTIONS, RESIGNATIONS, WE STARTED TO INCREASE OUR VACANCY COUNT AND SUDDENLY THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT THE TRANSITION BECAME A REAL POSSIBILITY AND SO WE STARTED TO EVALUATE. And this process has been an extremely collaborative effort. And I would be remiss if I didn't gratefully acknowledge so many members of the city staff, in particular, our HR director, Allison Garcia, and her staff, our chief financial officer, Stacy Tamani, and her staff, city manager's office, and of course, our city attorney, Sari, because there has been an exhaustive six or seven months of back and forth and No, your numbers don't look right. Let me run it again. Oh, the math doesn't math, as Mr. Weimar would tell you, is the math isn't mathing. And so we faced obstacles, we faced challenges, but I'm really grateful for the commitment of not only the staff, but the local 522, the Sacramento Area Firefighters Folsom Unit, and their leadership, as well as the council's support and ongoing belief that we could make this happen and it was possible. Earlier I mentioned the 10 reclassifications, and I want to really highlight that that in no way impacts an actual body filling a vacancy or a position. Those positions are actually vacant. So of the 76 total positions we have funded and allocated in the fire department, we currently only have 66. And so that's nine vacant positions, and we actually have an engineer's vacant. So if you promote up, which is the general process, we would end up with the 10 firefighter vacancies. If we did no change by early 2027, we will see an anticipated retirement of a battalion chief and we would be at 11 vacancies. And I just, again, wanna highlight that it's only through, I guess, some luck that we find ourselves in this position at a time where we can really leverage those vacancies and implement the system. So why single-rule work, a 48-hour workweek? In FLSA law, there is a clause known as the FLSA 7K exemption, and that allows us to work a variety of work schedules, anywhere from a 40- to a 56-hour workweek, and that's based on a 20-day, what they call a pay cycle or a pay period, in which... You're entitled to work more than a 40-hour work week because of the 7K exemption, and part of that exemption requires you to engage at least 80% of your time in actual suppression activities. And our single-role folks, because they will be isolated in terms of their EMS mission as EMTs and paramedics, will not be engaging in suppression activities, and so they are not eligible for the exemption. that forces us to go back to what most of us would know as a work week being a 40-hour work week. So what that means for scheduling and cost is given the number of vacancies that we have and how to staff the two units, we will have seven fixed shifts working 48 hours a week, two 24 hour shifts with a day off in between, which equals the 48 hours. And it's those eight hours that would be compensable at time and a half under FLSA law. There's no daily overtime obligation. FLSA labor code doesn't require a stipend or a stipulation for eight hours, and because our folks are public agencies in the state of California under the labor code, we're only beholden to the 40-hour work week, not the eight-hour work day. There's a number of ancillary and nuanced language that goes into break periods, sleep periods. For anybody that familiar with the old CAL FIRE or CDF schedule they worked essentially what was a 19 hour day and so from midnight to 5 o'clock was their rest period or their sleep period in which case they weren't paid unless they were called to service during those five hours then they got all five hours and of course We really don't have an interest in trying to balance day in and day out whether they were or weren't. Our medic units are generally up all night and working 24-hour shifts at the firehouse. We anticipate them being awake. So part of our presentation and our recommendation is that we just pay them for the 48 hours, eight of which would be compensable at time and a half. And this is what drives the 14 positions. So again, primarily because of the FLSA 7K non-exemption, it drives the staffing model. And the single-role staffing, again, is going to be made up of paramedics and EMTs, seven of each. There will be seven different shifts. We've identified two of our three ambulances, Medic 37 and Medic 39, for just... Management purposes, we've put eight of the 14 at 37 and six of those at Medic 39, even though that fourth shift will work one day at one medic unit, have a day off, and then work the next shift at the other medic unit, and you can see that sample schedule there on the left. Again, working a 48-hour work week, they will work one day on, they will have one day off, they will work one day on, and then they will have four days off, which is similar to the firefighter schedule, although they work They're 48 congruently, so they work 48 hours straight, and then they have a four-day. And again, because of that 7K exemption, that equals or averages out to a 56-hour work week, which single-role employees, because of their non-suppression activities, are not eligible. So our proposed staffing change. 27 firefighters, primarily made up of paramedics, we do have a few EMTs, would staff all three shifts, five engines, one truck, and one medic unit. And the 14 single-role employees, seven paramedics, seven EMTs, would staff our two other additional medic units, and we would have the seven shifts filled by the single role. And again, as a reminder, our current budget allows us to staff four engines, one truck, and three medic units. So as a comparison side by side on the left there you see the initial higher step of a fully salaried and benefited firefighter paramedic and then subsequent to that you see a single role EMT salary benefits and then you see a single role paramedic salary and benefits and there is a striking compensation. DIFFERENCE THERE WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO LEVERAGE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE REDUCTION REALLOCATION SO THIRTY SEVEN FIREFIGHTERS COSTS AN ESTIMATED SEVEN POINT SEVEN SIX NINE MILLION DOLLARS And our proposal is 27 firefighters, 7 medics, 7 EMTs that cost $7.723 million, which is an approximate saving of $46,289. And the reason it's an approximate is that as we hire and place these folks, they could be at different steps based on their current salary. And so we tried to anticipate that and be conservative in our figures. One additional variable that has a significant impact is hiring EMTs and paramedics allows us to do a very modified academy because these folks are very EMS centric. They'll come in, they'll do a number of things that is required of all employees with recourse to harassment training. certain state requirements, but they'll spend the bulk of the next few weeks doing driver training and running EMS scenarios and becoming accredited within the county. And so the timeframe that that takes is really only about four weeks, as opposed to a firefighter academy, which By all estimates, 10 weeks is a pretty short academy by the time we hire these folks and we onboard them to get through all of the disciplinary training that really ought to be included in a fire academy. But the last academy we ran was 12 weeks, and the approximate cost of that academy was $372,077. And again, a lot of that is the overtime it takes for the training, the consumable materials, building props, cutting up props. the wood and the hay and the materials to conduct live fire training, the vehicles that we have to obtain to do vehicle extrication training. And so there is certainly inherently more cost to run in a firefighter academy. And so when we factor that cost savings in for the fiscal year, we're projecting a savings, an additional savings of about $164,000. So when you add all those up, annual salary and benefits, you can see the graphs there on the left, again, the 7.77 million and the 7.723 with the proposed model. The annual salary and benefits projection with the one-time recruitment savings for the academy gives us a projected savings for the fiscal year of about $210,000. Lastly, I want to highlight the MOU. We engaged in very collaborative conversation. And again, I'm extremely pleased with the work and the commitment to getting to yes or to putting together a final package to really implement this. So what the MOU does and what the resolution does is officially recognizes the classifications of emergency medical technician and paramedic. IT ESTABLISHES AND ADOPTS THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR THOSE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DRAFTED. ESTABLISHES THE PAY SCALE FOR BOTH EMT AND PARAMEDICS. THERE WERE SOME MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO EDUCATION INCENTIVES IN THE FOLSOM UNIT SUPPRESSION MOU. THERE ARE EDUCATION INCENTIVES FOR THINGS LIKE FIRE OFFICER AND SUPPRESSION CENTRIC EDUCATION INCENTIVES THAT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE SO THOSE WERE SIMPLY REMOVED. But largely, the recognition and appreciation for higher education, associate's degrees, and bachelor's degrees remain untouched. It maintains longevity pay as currently provided to our suppression unit folks. It maintains their CalPERS safety pension, 2.7 at 57. And it maintains all current benefits as it relates to medical vision and dental. One key element of the MOU is it does differentiate between FLSA overtime and MOU overtime. So again, FLSA overtime is the overtime that we're obligated by law to compensate our employees for. MOU overtime is an agreement that we have with our employees in the forms of a bargaining agreement. One of the disadvantages to being a single role is you're scheduled to work 48 hours and eight hours is overtime. But if you were to take vacation or approved leave such as bereavement or comp time under the law, you're not obligated to pay them the eight hours because they weren't physically at work. And there's some ideological issues we take with an employee using approved leave to take vacation and actually seeing a reduction in their regular salary and benefits package. And so part of the overtime agreement is to give them what we refer to as known in the history as MOU overtime, and so they would essentially be guaranteed overtime for those additional eight hours in the event that they were to take, say, two shifts of vacation. Under the law, they're only entitled to 40 hours of compensation, but the MOU guarantees them the 48 hours of compensation as if they had been here. The exception to that is sick leave, and that's pretty consistent even within the suppression unit. So in that 28-day cycle, you've probably heard the term about FLSA overtime. And again, when they work beyond 212 hours in a 28-day period, they're entitled to halftime for those additional hours. they don't receive that half time when they take sick leave. And so the ideology and the application across both units, both the suppression fulsome unit and the fire EMS unit is consistent in that messaging in that if they were to call in sick, they would receive straight time for those hours rather than the additional half time for those eight hours. No change in leave procedures, maintains all management rights, maintains allowances proportionally, and what I mean by that is uniform allowance, reimbursement allowances, because these folks, as part of their career development, wouldn't be required to take as many classes. The education reimbursement has been proportionally adjusted and, of course, maintains all disciplinary procedures as granted under the management rights clause. So the implementation of this, based on your approval and direction to move forward in closed session, we began an recruitment process. We've completed that. that included an application process, oral boards and chiefs interviews. And I'm pleased to say that we have 14 folks that have received contingent offers pending the approval from council to adopt the resolution and officially acknowledge those classifications in the MOU and the fire EMS unit. We're anticipating full completion of that process by the end of the week, and we are scheduled to tentatively start the academy next Monday and welcome 14 new employees to the Folsom Fire Department and our family. as far as the full implementation phase september 6 is when we anticipate the emts completing their portion of the academy and so they'll go online and there would be what i would refer to as kind of a soft opening of engine 39 as staffing allows and then once the additional paramedics complete their uh county accreditation they're required to do so many calls under the supervision of an FTO, field training officer, and so they have to, by county requirement, ride with another paramedic to ensure that they are competent in those infrequently used skills and advanced life support techniques. Full implementation of the program would be expected on or around September 19th, and it would be that time that we would propose Staffing engine 39 on an ongoing regular basis to give us that that suppression capability So with that staff is recommending the approval of resolution one one six nine a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the city of Folsom and the Sacramento area firefighters local five to two IFF Folsom fire EMS professional unit and authorizing the implementation of the single-role ambulance transport system and with that I'd be happy to take any questions

Chief, that was just one minute long on the presentation, but you made up for it in that very quick implementation timeline. So thank you for that. That was awesome.

I have a quick question. Maybe you said it, but do you have a number of like you're hiring six EMTs and eight paramedics, or how do you, and what's the difference?

Yeah, so the 14, the total will be split directly in half. So there'll be seven EMTs and seven paramedics, and they will be partnered together. So kind of the anomaly here is because of the FLSA implications and the work schedule, that's how we got to 14, because if we only hired 12, which is the number of firefighters we would use to staff medics under the current model, we would have one day on each medic unit that went unstaffed, and then we would be forced to use overtime to fill that, which is not a best practice when you're building long-term sustainability. So by hiring those two additional folks, both one EMT and one paramedic, They will work the one extra day on one medic unit, have a day off, and then work the other day on the other medic unit. So all seven of the shifts will work the same schedule. It'll be fixed. And that's how we got to seven and seven.

And then the savings. Can you go back to that slide? Yeah. Okay, so yeah, that number is slightly different than you have in the packet. The packet, the total savings comes up to 292, like 128,000 in ongoing.

Yeah, so it's a great question. As we've been receiving approvals from medicals and backgrounds and engaging in conversation with the employees coming in, some of them are going to be placed at a step beyond step one. And so that has...

So this is the more current, this is a more current.

Yes. Yeah. When we put the staff report together, we were taking kind of the average thinking that everybody was going to come in at the same step. And what we've learned is, is that there is justification and rationale and bringing folks in at different steps based on their current salary.

Well, thank you for all the work on this and I know I think that you're a welcome. I think your entire department is happy to have you and Thank you. Yeah, and I think this is a great way to bring fiscal responsibility and accountability into Staffing our public safety. So thank you for everything.

Thank you That's more because asking questions no, I was just gonna I don't have any questions right now Any other questions down here?

Just a quick question. So when this is all said and done and the fifth engine is brought back in, will the medics be at 35, 37, and 39?

Yes, yes. There will be a short period of time, interestingly enough. We don't have quite enough beds at Station 39 to accommodate an engine and a medic with an FTO. So there will be about a 10 or 12 day period that Medic 39 will actually have to house at 36 because they have enough rooms to accommodate all those individuals. But once everyone is complete with the FTO, it is certainly our intent to move that medic unit back to 39, which is where we believe that it is best deployed from.

Okay, so there'll be medics at 35, 37, 39, and engine everywhere, except the truck will be at 35 until it moves to 37 when the at bay gets... That is correct. Okay, all right. Thank you.

Yep.

Third base. That's where we're at.

This was a very complicated process. I can see that. And I really congratulate you on getting through all this work. It's a very complex puzzle. I do have a couple of questions. And that is, covering for sick calls, is that factored into this? So let's say two people come down with a serious illness, injury, or something, and you need to cover. So how do you cross-cover between them?

Great question. The mechanism by which we do that currently, even in the firefighter suppression unit, is that essentially any time an employee is absent for vacation or sick, we fill that with overtime. In the MOU, there is language that guarantees them up to four folks the emt and paramedics classifications are a part of that 15 or that four it'll be based on seniority so it doesn't change the number of folks who would be allowed off on any given day and the overtime budget is designed around having four folks gone every single day for 365 days wow

Good work. And then my other question was on the training. Are you going to be doing that locally? There have been some conversations with partnering with other fire or special units in the region.

Yeah, great question. For specifically the EMS Academy, we've leveraged some incredible talent within our agency, and it will be them and... conjunction with the training division, providing EMS training. But to your point, one of the benefits, as I see, as I mentioned earlier, is the recruitment process because There's not an exact science as to how many vacancies you have in the fire department before it becomes cost effective to try to run a fire academy. And of course, a fire academy, depending on how you do the recruitment. So if you're hiring, if we do an open recruitment where we're not hiring folks from other fire departments, that process is about a 24 to a 28 week academy. And so we're forced to staff those vacancies for six months after we hire them. The partnership that you reference is a conversation that we are having with Sac Metropolitan Fire Department and potentially Sac Metro or I'm sorry, Sac City. As we have single-role folks who have an interest in the fire service, which many of them do, it will allow us to take current employees through a competitive process, send them to the fire academy, and the onboarding time for the EMTs and the paramedics is significantly faster and reduced timeframe. So we'll be able to backfill those vacancies and consistently provide an adequate number of folks in the field to staff those vacancies so that we're... not marginalizing the impacts to staff that they have when they're filling ongoing vacancies for a period of time. That answer your question?

Yeah, no, that's great. I'm glad to hear those conversations are continuing so that we have adequate training for everybody across the board. And so I really think this took a lot of vision and flexibility on your part. So I really appreciate that and the collaboration that went on among all of the staff members, because this was a clear. huge effort to undertake to fix this situation that's caused a lot of distress for the residents throughout the city you know as we change what fire engines what house who has an ambulance and all of that so i really appreciate your work thank you so much

No, you're very welcome. And again, just so grateful for the partnerships. This collaborative effort transcends across many departments that I've mentioned tonight and could not be have done successfully without the labor's collaboration. And so, again, just grateful for everybody who was committed to the process, like not unlike any other new program you're trying to implement. There's lots of unknowns and that creates anxiety amongst members. And so You do the best to address and try to identify and problem solve, but inevitably, I think we concluded at the end when we had, again, what the city manager would refer to as maybe not perfect, but a really good framework. We felt comfortable enough and have built that trust and that relationship that we know we can sit at a table and have a conversation in the future should we identify a topic of discussion, so.

Yeah, and I understand 522 is very happy with results and shows a great ability to work with people on both sides of the table. Yes.

Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. no questions for me i'll just echo the appreciation of my colleagues great job i'm sure the community is going to be excited to hear this uh if those that haven't heard it already uh so thank you for all your work on it and thanks for the quick implementation oh no you're very welcome um if you don't mind i'll just leave you with one uh so oftentimes at a presentation like this we kind of talk about next steps um

After we implement the system and we kind of work through the first three to six months, it is our intent to try to identify a pathway so that we're taking folks who we've hired as EMTs and helping them achieve paramedic status and then ultimately supporting those folks in their development should they choose to want to enter into the fire service. And so it would be It would be our goal to identify that pathway and develop a strategy on how to support them as they move through. Because, again, when you have great people, you want to retain those people. And so helping them achieve their goals is really a goal of ours. And, yeah, I look forward to the opportunity. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Sorry, Council Member Lee, do you have another question?

No. Oh, okay. Just gonna see if we could move to an approval here.

Go ahead.

Okay, I'd like to move resolution number 11690, resolution authorizing city manager to execute an MOU between the City of Folsom and the Sacramento Area Firefighters 522. IAFF, Folsom Fire, EMS, it's a very long sentence. Professional Unit Authorizing Implementation Single Role Ambulance Transport System. I'll second.

Please call the roll.

Council members, Royba. Yes. Aquino. Yes. Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary. Yes. And Rathel.

Yes. And that takes us to the city manager report.

Great, thank you, Mayor and members of the council. Before I get into the report, I just want to echo the comments that were stated about the single role program and Chief Solak's efforts to get us to that point. I appreciate his willingness to push through and also the partnership that the local has shared with us in making this possible. But as far as the updates, I appreciate some of the comments that we've seen on social media related to fire hazards and that sort of thing. Just to announce to the community that we have additional weed abatement efforts that are being completed at sites throughout the city of Folsom. Work is currently underway in the Hinkle Creek Nature Area with additional locations scheduled across the city. The city is also using goat grazing crews to reduce dry vegetation and wildfire risk in open spaces. And we also have a lot of pavement work going on in town, so appreciate everyone's patience with that. The 2026 pavement resurfacing project is underway in the Willow Creek area and includes portions of Glen, Coolidge, Park Shore Plaza, and the Tomah Station drives, Empire Ranch Road, and nearby residential streets and school zones. The improvements include pavement repairs and resurfacing sidewalk and curb ramp repairs, accessibility upgrades, striping, high visibility crosswalks, and buffered bike lanes. The work is funded by Measure A, Senate Bill 1, and without the use of general fund dollars. I just want to congratulate our parks department and our parks planner. Prospector Park earned an APWA Project of the Year Award. That's the American Public Works Association Project of the Year Award in the Parks and Trail category. The award recognizes excellence in planning, design, construction, sustainability, and collaboration. It's an amazing park. You just need to go out there any day of the week, and you'll see that it's being heavily utilized. Also, just a reminder to the community, Community Service Day registration is open. The actual event, the 13th Annual Folsom Community Service Day, will be held Saturday, September 19th. We encourage everyone who's interested to go onto the city's website and fill out a registration form. Also, the Folsom Police Department received a Patriotic Employer Award from the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and Department of Defense Agency. Officer Mike Austin, a Coast Guard reservist assigned to the Traffic Bureau, nominated the department in recognition of its support during his military deployments. The award was presented to Sergeant Paul Rice and the Traffic Bureau for their support of Officer Austin and his military service. We'd also like to acknowledge we have Folsom Fire Battalion Chief Ben Signore has been deployed to the Grasshopper Fire in Oregon, where he is serving as a line safety officer. Chief Signore brings more than 29 years of structural and wildland fire experience and is helping oversee firefighters' safety while working alongside fire personnel from across the country and Australia. Big thanks to our fire personnel who helped in a water rescue when an individual jumped off Rainbow Bridge and was injured. Appreciate their quick action to help that individual. And that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Brian. Council comments? Council Member Kozlowski?

Yeah, just a couple of quick things. I want to thank the police department for organizing it and all the people who hosted National Night Out block parties. Great fun was had by all on that evening. A bunch of us were out at parties all around the city and it was a blast. We had a land use and natural resources SACOG meeting on Thursday last week. and had a fairly in-depth discussion about setting up a VMT bank of sorts so that developers could, in lieu of finding their own mitigation strategies to meet their environmental requirements, could have SACOG broker a mitigation strategy by helping to fund other projects that create mitigation. So as it stands right now, the advice that the committee is giving to the whole board will get considered at our meeting later this month. But it was we resolved that we did want to set up a bank or not a bank, but a. exchange an exchange exactly and uh so that's coming and more details about that soon and then last thing um the last three concerts at the zittle auditorium are happening on this thursday next thursday and the following thursday so uh um good fun out there lots of lots of great live music and really good a particularly good band on the 27th thank you vice mayor no no comments council over there

Yeah, I echo the sentiment about National Night Out. That was a lot of fun. As usual, it was pretty toasty out there. I'd do it again. Anyway, but I really appreciate the police department and volunteers for putting these things together to get us around and visit people in various neighborhoods. I also want to thank our city manager, Brian Whitemeyer, and public works director for putting together a plan that I hope will come to fruition soon about fixing the problems on Prairie City Road, because you know I've been talking about it for a year and a half, and I'll still talk about it until I can pour the first bucket of asphalt in one of the big holes, so. Thank you. And I want to make a little announcement here for District 1. I put together a community safety meeting with our police department and Jean with Jake's Journey Home to discuss the homeless situation, which particularly affects Natoma Station and some of the residents have complained about this all the way out to along Iron Point, all the way out to Broadstone and into the historic district.

District four or district one or both?

District four. Oh, I'm sorry, did I say one? Sorry.

Happy to join you.

I can't read my little writing here. I'm down to the last corner of this piece of paper. But anyway, it'll be on August 26th at 5 p.m. at Harrah's Coffee Shop, which is just across the parking lot from Winco. So I invite any of the residents in Folsom that want to ask questions of our POP and HOT team members and Jean Sacali with Jake's Dirty Home to show up that night. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Aquino.

I just want to add my comments to thank Chief Solak for really getting this single role thing over the line. I don't think we can underscore what a win this is for the fire department and the city and our residents. I also want to give some kudos. The first time I heard about single role was from Dan Haverty when he was our interim city manager. And so I want to thank him and Chief Cassano for getting the ball started. And then of course Chief Solak for getting it over the finish line. One of the things that I've been doing lately, I always find it interesting to see what other cities, particularly in our region, are doing, things that we might be able to replicate here or learn from others. So I've been going back and watching some other cities' budget workshops. Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova both use a two-year budget cycle, so they've just been kind of doing some mid-year adjustments, but always interesting. You may have heard that Citrus Heights eliminated some positions in their police department, both unfilled positions and filled positions, in order to afford some salary increases, which caused them to dissolve their traffic unit and move those officers back to patrol. So kind of interesting. For Roseville, we have a three-year contract for our labor unions. They had a four-year contract for their police department, which I think is pretty remarkable. Their mayor really credited those long contracts with some stability as far as their finances go. And then the other thing I wanted to suggest to Stacy and to Brian, something that Roseville does, and I'll send you a screenshot of the slide, but they had a slide that showed sales tax information um by shopping center so they had one for the fountains they had one for the roseville galleria they had one for the roseville auto mall and i know an idea that i brought before it in the past is about kind of economic zones in the city but i think it'd be really interesting for us to see you know the outlets this is a fulsome auto mall versus palladio versus the historic district versus the central business district to see you know really who is the economic engine of the city and where maybe when we make some investments in things such as the central district it does that investment pay off in terms of increased sales tax revenue so anyway that's all i have thank you

Thank you. For mine, I've got just a report out. We had the first ad hoc committee meeting for the Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board. So we've been tasked with setting up kind of the governance structure. We expect to have a recommendation out to the councils and the board of supervisors around the end of the year. for that so we'll keep working away with that group but it's got you know all the surrounding cities in sacramento county and the county there has representatives and we have a large team of staff that's helping us through that and a consultant team helping us set up that structure I also wanted to thank Council Member Aquino for covering me at the Sac Sewer Board and also volunteering me for the subcommittee on quorum.

I volunteered fulsome. I said I would cover for you if you couldn't go.

She did say she would be my alternate if I could not make it to the subcommittee. But we've had challenges having quorum at a very important regional board. And so we're getting together on Thursday to discuss some changes that we might make in order to help us get to quorum. So on the list is just having Sac Sheriff run around and round people up for the meeting. A couple other business updates, just kind of wanted to share out. The city manager and I met with Intel and they informed us that they are not actually going to proceed with selling the campus. So that's great news for Folsom. Their plans have shifted and so they let us know that and just wanted to kind of let that everybody else know if they hadn't heard it already. And then the other thing that I think is important, especially to the Central Business District, is the Department of Motor Vehicles Center right there across from Sutter Middle School has also recently changed hands. And they're excited about making some changes there to the center and helping revitalize that. So I just got a meeting on the schedule with them to kind of talk through and hear about what plans they have coming up for that area of Folsom.

They have a surveyor out there measuring the dirt patch.

oh excellent yeah it's exciting that means that means that means they're uh they're ready to go that's right yeah with that we're gonna adjourn at 8 22. thank you all