City Council - Regular Meeting

meeting and we will move to the regular meeting of the city council for tuesday september 8th please call the roll council members kozlowski here leary roba yes akino here and rayfield here all right if you please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And do we have any agenda updates this evening?

Yes, Mayor, we have an additional or a revised staff report transmittal on item number 15.

Thank you. And that takes us to business from the floor. This is the time of the council meeting where any member of the public can address the council on un-agendized items. So if you'd like to address the council this evening, we just ask that you fill out a blue card that you can find on the table in the back and bring that up right here to the side of the dais. Do we have any business from the floor this evening?

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

Thank you so much. And that takes us to our scheduled presentations. We are waiting on one of our Spirit of Folsom Award recipients to get here this evening. So we are going to switch around item number one and two this evening. And we're going to start with the presentation of the 13th Annual Folsom Community Service Day. And we get a dance.

And he leaves.

Good evening, Council. Tom Hellman with the Parks and Recreation Department, flanked by my right and left by the members of the steering committee for this year's Folsom Community Service Day. Today, we're giving you a presentation on what to look forward to as we approach the 13th annual event on Saturday, September 19th, with your official invitation. Before I forget, because I placed them all at your dais, you have a bag in front of you. You should have received those. In your bag is your beautiful Tie-Dye Warrior shirt, along with a sticker, so you have that in front of you. This will be a tag team event tonight, and I'm gonna kick this over and present Sandy Economy, our CSD Chair for this year to start us off.

Well, good evening, Mayor, Council Members, Mr. Whitemeyer. It's my honor and privilege once again to tell you that we're almost there, yay! Community Service Day, number 13. So as you can see, Some of the absolutely amazing team, best people ever, are here with me, and we are just so thrilled to do this yet again. Thank you. So again, it's Saturday, well I shouldn't say again, it's always the third Saturday of September. This year, Saturday, September 19th, Lakeside Church, they are generously allowing us to meet there like they have in years past, and we're very grateful. About 1600 volunteers is what we anticipate and hope for. Right now we only have 64% of those spots filled up. We need people. So I'm so glad we have this opportunity. I'm hoping people, not only in the audience, but people that will listen to this presentation will hear this and decide that they too want to participate and become a part of this fabulous day of giving back. I do wanna take a moment to just thank our sponsors who have just generously given yet again, and many are sponsors from years past and just continue to be faithful. So City of Folsom, all that they give in time and energy and effort. Dignity Health, Micron, and then, I'm sorry, that was our highest level sponsor, excuse me, presenting sponsors at 15,000. And then at 10,000, our visionary sponsors, Lakeside Church, Folsom Times, Lennar, the Folsom Telegraph, our leader sponsors at $5,000, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, UC Davis Health, and Folsom Police Foundation. our sponsor partners at $3,000, Dockin Engineering, Style Media Group, Choose Folsom, Rotary Club of Folsom, American Logo Wear, Walsh Law, Good Life Inspections, Kaiser Permanente, Winco Foods, and Elliott Homes. And again, without all of their help, we couldn't buy the materials to go along with all the wonderful volunteers to actually get the work done. Oh, pardon me, last but not least, Good Neighbor sponsors at $1,500, American River Ace Hardware, Palladio, Order of the Eastern Star California, and SMUD. So there we go, 115,000 in cash and in-kind sponsorships. So blessed, our community is just amazing. We're so grateful. And now projects, so we're gonna swap spots.

So before I use a sampling of the 40 projects we have that we'll be tackling throughout the community, various locations from park places to organizations to school sites that you see there, many of these are still looking for volunteers to fill. So if you are out there, you can go to Folsom.ca.us and look into the community service page or community service day page and look for the volunteer link there to sign up for projects that are still available. So please do so. In addition to those projects, we have 63 projects identified in our neighbors helping seniors program. So right now we have another group of folks out assessing neighbors helping seniors homes and residents to see how we can assist them as we gear up for that day. Again, this is another part of community service day where we do need a lot of volunteer help. So if you're interested, please get in there, register for volunteerism to help out with neighbors helping seniors projects. In addition to the day, there's just so much going on throughout the day, we have a wonderful donation drive with beneficiaries to many different organizations throughout the Folsom area. A listing here of all the things that are being taken in on the donation drive day. That is held at Lakeside Church right there kind of next door. They refer to it as the block. It's closest to South Lexington Drive. You can enter off of South Lexington Drive right there. You'll see canopies deployed and people gathering where you can bring these items and drop them off to the number of different organizations that are collecting donations for the day. In addition, also with partnership with the Folsom Fire Department out at Station 35, we're also doing a community blood drive from 10 to 115. Vitalant does recommend doing a reservation or setting up an appointment. So if you want, you can scan the QR code and they can set up your appointments there for giving blood that day. Twin Lakes Food Bank, this is their biggest citywide food drive that we work with them on. We have delivered over 30,000 bags to residents, apartment complexes, you name it. We will be looking to pick up those bags on Saturday morning, the 19th. So please have your bags out by the curb or in front of your house so that volunteers coming through can load them up, bring them back over for the receiving sort. But if everybody can get the bag that you should have and start gathering the food items that are listed on the flyer, that would greatly help Twin Lakes Food Bank. Again, this is another project where we could use help at the receiving sort. So those interested in still volunteering, please look at this as an opportunity as well. Finally, here's a short video that was pushed out about our community food drive that we'd like to share with you.

Empire Ranch is starting off. What can you add, Natoma Station? We can do better than that. Broadstone, keep it going. Oh, happy to. Where's Ranch? This bag's getting heavy.

Now we're getting somewhere. Hurry up. I hope you brought another bag.

Good thing we did. Parkway, two bags headed your way. Two bags won't be enough. We brought a wagon. Folsom Ranch, think you can fill it? Challenge accepted. This wagon's filling up fast. Historic Folsom, you may need something bigger. Yes, you're right. We're gonna need something bigger. Get ready, Lexington Hills.

Now that's a neighborhood challenge.

Many neighborhoods, one goal, to stock the shelves at Twin Lakes Food Bank. Folsom is all in for Twin Lakes Food Bank.

Fill your bag and leave it at the curb by 8 a.m. on September 19th, and we'll take it from there.

So once again, yes. Once again, we invite you all to Lakeside Church on Saturday the 19th. Please arrive by 7.30 a.m. with your shirt to join us on stage, and then afterwards for another memorable group photo like you see here. Thank you to all the steering committee members present and not accounted for. They've done a great deal of work since we first started in March preparing for this day. So we look forward to serving the community, working with all of the residents and volunteers, and especially all of you for your support So thank you very much for this time tonight. Any questions?

Any questions for our wonderful steering committee? Great job, we appreciate you guys. Looking forward to September 19th. All right, that brings us back to item number one. and the presentation of the Spirit of Folsom Awards.

All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm Christine Brainerd, Communications Director at the City of Folsom, and tonight we are going to be recognizing the award recipients from the annual Spirit of Folsom Citizen Recognition Program. Three years ago, the Folsom City Council established the Spirit of Folsom Awards Program to recognize individuals who go above and beyond to serve the Folsom community. So in this program, each city council member nominates one recipient from their district annually, resulting in five honorees. Nominees must be Folsom residents, volunteers, employees of a Folsom business, or students in Folsom schools who dedicate themselves to serving the community. Tonight, each city council member will introduce their nominees. So first up is Brian Wallace, nominated by Mayor Justin Rathel.

I should just make all those folks stand up with the cool shirts on again. This is for you, my friend.

Oh, thank you so much. This is amazing.

I'm gonna say a few kind words about you.

Okay.

So Brian Wallace has devoted more than a decade to strengthening Folsom through civic leadership, volunteer service, and his creativity. He currently serves as the vice chair of the Folsom Parks and Rec Commission, where he has served since 2019, including as chair. He also previously served on the Arts and Cultural Commission from 2014 to 2018. Since 2017, Brian has served on the Folsom Community Service Day Steering Committee. He created the event's visual identity and has designed the annual artwork and volunteer t-shirts worn by thousands of residents. And those cute little animals that change each year, he spends a lot of time on those, the ones that we all love. And he gets a lot of feedback and flack from the committee too about those animals. He's also served on the Folsom Cordova Community Partnership Board of Directors for 12 years, including as Vice President, supporting programs that assist local children and families. Brian has contributed his talents to projects and organizations throughout Folsom, including the community rebuild of Castle Park, Friends of Folsom Parkways, the Folsom Disc Golf Club, the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary, that great beer that came out, and also Historic Folsom. His designs include community entrance banners, historic Folsom ice rink branding, and artwork for numerous local events and fundraisers. He's also coached youth baseball, soccer, and basketball. He has a hard time saying no, even when he doesn't know what the sport is about. As an author and illustrator, Brian helps young readers connect with their community through books celebrating Folsom's landmarks, history, and identity. Whether advising the city, supporting local organizations, or donating his creative talents, Brian consistently works to enhance Folsom's quality of life. It's an honor to recognize Brian Wallace with the spirit of Folsom Ward, and also to call him a friend. Thank you, Brian. Oh, boy.

Yeah. I guess I'll say something. It's different being down here, but I don't want to drop it. So my wife and I, Jessica and I moved to Folsom a little over 20 years ago. And as Justin said, somewhere along the way, I found it very hard to say no to things. I don't know how that happened. But saying yes to all these different projects actually brings me a ton of joy and I get way more out of it than I ever put in. Seeing all the folks here tonight in the We Serve Folsom t-shirts, that's one of my most favorite things. When I'm out walking the trails and seeing folks wearing the Friends of Folsom Parkways vests, it's really meaningful and I love it. I love it so much. People say, when they talk about community, they say, you don't you know you don't really have to do some huge thing you just find what it is that you do well and then you just keep showing up and lucky for me it's worked out because i can show up with a pencil a sketchbook maybe a computer and a few opinions about parks and recreation and that's how i contribute but i want to also thank all the great people that i've been able to work alongside over the years It's been amazing. We've done some great projects together, and I've learned so much from so many of them. Paul Romero is here tonight. He's one of my mentors when I joined the Parks and Rec Commission. And so it's awesome to see him here. But I also want to thank my family. Because take somebody, you know, I say yes to a lot of things and to have their support and to have their support is huge. And so to Jessica, Cole, and Claire, thank you for giving me the latitude to do all this stuff and say yes to so much in this community because it does make a difference. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, next up we have the Friends of Folsom Parkways, represented by Special Projects Director Glenn Hermanson and nominated by Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbaugh. If we can have the Friends join us at the podium.

I'd like all the members of the Friends of Folsom Parkways to come up. You didn't just do all the work yourself?

Not at all. I'll get fingerprints on it.

Thank you. And we'll get the picture at the end. Oh, well, he'll do it the whole time. I want to thank you. This came to me several months ago, knowing this award was coming up, and watching all the work you do in my district, District 5. But not just my district, actually Folsom-wide. So I had to kind of get it cleared. But I couldn't be happier to give you specifically this award, but also the entire Friends of Folsom, the volunteers and the Friends of Folsom Parkways and the entire board. The work that you do, fire, fuel, ladder reduction, adopt a trail, the work you did on Castle Park. I think there's over 5,800 hours that you spend. Particularly, I've seen this last year around where I live, all the cleanup of all the brushes and the trees. And I love nothing more that you get to leave all that and the City comes and picks it up. That's amazing. So just all the work that you do throughout the community to make it better, to make what we love about Folsom even better. Stepping up when the city, you know, has financial issues to maintain some of the things that you guys are capable of doing. I just couldn't be prouder. To me, it's like kind of like the community service day when all these people come up and volunteer. You guys do that consistently, almost daily, but I know weekly. And I just, I really appreciate all the time and effort. And let me just make sure I didn't Oh, actually, I'll just let you have a moment. And I want to thank you. You're director of the special projects. So you get a lot of this. You put all the organization together. And I think there's no bigger testament to who a strong leader is when they can lead a volunteer organization. So thank you. You're not you're not the president, but you're a special project. So that's just as good. Tom, I said, you know, the board president sent me a special email wanting me to thank you and all the volunteers here, too. So I will let you have the mic.

Thank you very much for this award. First, I want to thank the city and all the work. We can't do this without you, especially Chris O'Keefe and his maintenance group. They're key to getting everything done, chipping up the branches and supplying us with equipment. And then the solid waste division, they put out the green bins. We have over 40 in the city right now that we fill up twice a week that are really making a big difference. And without those guys, it wouldn't work. Three other things, I'll keep this short. One, we started doing the fire fuel removal back in February of last year. We just finished our 99th fire fuel event, and this week we'll have number 100. So that's something we're quite proud of. Number two, we do have a number of trail segments that are available for sponsorship. So if you're interested in sponsoring a trail, check out our website and we'll be glad to sign you up to sponsor a trail. And then three, we're having a fundraiser soon in the near future where we're going to have our special labeled beer at Red Bus Brewery. The label is actually designed. And so put your pre-orders in, and we'd love to make some money off your beer drinking.

Now I know why you're so good at getting volunteers. Self-promotion, perfect. I love it. Way to market yourself. So thank you so much for all the work, and we'll get a photo.

Our next Spirit of Folsom Award winner is Jim Snook, presented by Council Member Mike Klosowski.

Okay, so he didn't know it, but he's been working at earning this award for like 35 years straight. So just a few things that Jim has done that has helped him earn this award. He's helped shape the heart of Folsom through decades of dedicated service. As the owner of Snook's Chocolates, he has created a beloved gathering place while generously supporting fellow business owners and numerous local organizations. Jim currently serves as the chair of Juice Folsom and president of the Folsom Historic District Association, where he served on the board for more than 30 years. His leadership has contributed to many of Historic Folsom's greatest successes, including the streetscape revitalization, property-based improvement district, and Historic Folsom ice rink. Jim generously supports organizations that make Folsom stronger, including the powerhouse ministries, Jake's Journey Home, the Folsom Police Foundation, Twin Lakes Food Bank, Hands for Hope, the Sutter Street Theater, and the Folsom History Museum. His service also happens quietly behind the scenes. Jim mentors fellow business owners, welcomes visitors into his shop to share the art of chocolate making, and speaks to students at career day, fixes holiday lights, then fixes them again, then fixes them again, and volunteers at community events. Whether he's leading a major initiative or stepping in wherever help is needed, Jim serves with integrity, humility, and kindness. Folsom is stronger because of his leadership, generosity, and commitment to our community. And just as a sort of summation of all of that, many of us have referred to Sutter Street and our historic district as the living room of Folsom. All of us go visit there. That's where we invite guests to, right? And no trip to Sutter Street would be complete without stopping in at Snooks. So not only does he have the most important business on the street, but it's been, aside from maybe Hop Singh, the longest lived one on the street, or the longest continuous one. And his leadership as a business owner within the business community is really a credit to his ability as a diplomat, because everybody is in somewhat of competition, And being able to counsel people and lead all of these special initiatives is his superpower. So very, very well received. Congratulations. Thank your wife.

I would definitely love to say a few words. And my wife did invite a posse tonight. I'm looking around. And as I look around this room, I see so many amazing, dynamic people that could be up here. But yes, I've made a lot of great friends through the different boards I'm on and the city. But you can't do what I've been doing all these years without my wife and my family, because they always hear, where's Jim? And they get that a lot. And sometimes I don't even remember to tell them. I'm like, I got to go. And they've gotten used to that, though. But when we opened, Renee and I were talking, we're in our fifth decade. So we're in year 41. So we've made it through four decades. This is year 41. Our oldest, Derek, was pregnant when Renee and I opened. So he's going to be 41 this year. But, you know, the transition of... Being a new business and struggling, we've been through it, you know, so I know what a new business takes. And we've been able to build over these years. And now I've had time to give back these last several years. So I love Folsom. We all love Folsom. It's an amazing city. It was kind of cool to follow Community Service Day and see what all they do. And one quick note, I've even got my mother-in-law here. So that was a surprise. But if you ever go by Snooks and you look at like our hanging baskets or the planter that's up the street, it's actually city property. But my sister is a landscaper and she adopted that planter. So it used to be full of weeds and now it's just amazing. It's been a process. You know, she'll stop by for a half hour and trim some roses and do some things. But or Mike will show up with a whole new set of plants. hanging baskets, winter to summer, summer to winter kind of thing, or he's fixing the drip line. So my family, you know, what all they do, all my boys and all they do, it's been just what makes us work. You got to pass that award. I know. Yes.

Like the Stanley Cup, everybody gets it for a week.

And to... the council and you for all the city has done to support the historic district because it truly is the living room and we have loved to see the transition of it and we could not imagine being anywhere else in business but where we're at so thank you you're very very welcome

Next up is Paul Romero, nominated by Council Member Barbara Leary.

Thank you. I'm going to hand this to Paul to hold while I read this tribute to you. And it's really a pleasure to be able to give Paul this award, and he's had statewide impact starting with his career early on down south, and I thought I'll write a little brief history of his experiences, but his experiences can't be explained in just a few words. Paul has a 56-year history of service throughout the state of California, and most recently, and lucky for us, settled in Folsom. So Paul's passion for parks and recreation began in 1970 as a park ranger for the city of Long Beach and grew into a distinguished 38 year career in public service. He then served as parks director for two major county park systems and in 2004 was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as chief deputy director of the California State Parks and Recreation Department. So he came to us with a lot of experience already under his belt. His leadership and dedication has earned him induction into the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration's Honor Society in 2005 and the California Park and Rec Society Hall of Fame in 2018. In Folsom, Paul continued that legacy, initially appointed to the Park and Recreation Commission in 2012 by Councilwoman Carrie Howell. He was reappointed by subsequent councils and ended up serving nine years, including four years as vice chair and two years as chair. Paul was a strong advocate for thoughtful, long-term planning and believed that today's decisions should create opportunities for tomorrow's generations. During his tenure, numerous parks and recreational improvements were advanced, including Nissenon Park, Hazel McFarland Park, Economy Park, Willow Hills Reservoir Community Park, and Hinkle Creek Nature Area. He also championed the creation of wild nights and holiday lights at the Folsom Zoo, helping increase both community enjoyment and revenue. After leaving the commission in 2021, Paul remained committed to seeing Livermore Park completed. He worked on two separate ballot measures to support our park's development and maintenance, Measure E in 2019 and Measure G in 2024. Unfortunately, both of these failed, putting projects further behind and left the city in position of not having enough funding to finish or repair multiple parks north of 50 to this day. His persistence in pursuing the completion of Livermore Park has finally helped bring the long-awaited parking lot project to reality with construction soon to be underway, with other final steps still to be completed. Paul's legacy is measured not only in the parks and improvements he helped advance, but in his unwavering belief that parks enrich communities and improve the quality of life for generations to come. For more than five decades, Paul has dedicated his life to parks, recreation, and public service. Folsom is fortunate to have benefited from his leadership, vision, and enduring commitment to our community. So I'm very proud to have Paul here tonight. This has been a big parks and rec night. I think that says a lot about what people in Folsom really enjoy, and I look forward to continuing to enjoy in the future. So thank you so much, Paul.

Well, first of all, I want to thank Barbara for her support and leadership and responding to all the needs and interests of the people in the district. She's doing a great job. Thank you. I also am really honored to be receiving this award with such distinguished people. Jim, I don't know you, but my granddaughter spent a lot of time at the show. And I know Brian, Brian and I go back a long time, and I'm so pleased to be receiving the award with him. And Postman Parkway, where are all the hundred of you? Oh, they're back. I walk your trails every day. My wife and I go out at 5 in the morning, and we just walk and walk and walk. So that's what happens when you get old. And mentioning my wife, she's here tonight. My wife of 57 years is Joanne.

Aloha.

And thank you so much for this recognition. I've had a lot of opportunities over the years to be recognized, but this is really important to me because it's from my community. Thank you so much.

And last, but certainly not least, is Vijay Beskar Janalagada, nominated by Councilmember Sarah Aquino.

Thank you.

Well, you can quickly see why this has become one of our favorite nights of the year. It is my pleasure to recognize Vijay Bhaskar Janalagada, who truly epitomizes the spirit of Folsom. He generously and consistently donates his time, talent, and resources to improve the lives of all Folsom residents. Vijay's service extends across the community, from volunteering at the Folsom Pro Rodeo, to cleaning parks after major holidays, to serving on the Community Service Day Steering Committee, to mentoring two little brothers through the Big Brothers Big Sisters organization. For 30 years, Vijay has been a dedicated blood donor, donating whole blood, platelets, and plasma more than 455 times. Vijay is actively involved with several Indian cultural and service organizations, and founded the Indian Association of Sacramento as a Folsom-based organization. Vijay has volunteered with the Friends of the Folsom Library, and for the past six years has served on the Library Commission. Originally appointed to the Commission by then-Councilmember Y. K. Chalamchurla, who's with us tonight, Vijay helped the Library establish a Telugu language collection. Library Director Tom Gronisen had this to say about Vijay. It's impossible for me to imagine how the library Telugu collection could have been as successful as it is now. without his help. Vijay chaired the committee that brought it to fruition through community engagement, title selection, and our grant writing and fundraising efforts, and was instrumental in bringing it from a dream to reality. Perhaps most near and dear to Vijay's heart is his work with Heart of Folsom. Vijay has volunteered at the Heart Winter Shelter for six years and has served on its board of directors for the past two. He helped introduce Heart's mission to the Indian community and raised more than $120,000 for Heart Student Village. According to Liz, Heart's board president, who's also with us here tonight, Vijay has the biggest heart for service and will always step up when asked. On the Heart board, he serves on the oversight committee for our housing program and is hands-on with Heart's clients. He helps them get laptops, bikes, and move their belongings into permanent housing after they graduate from our housing program. He is an advocate for all Folsom residents in need and is as honest as can be too. Vijay's compassion, civic involvement, and remarkable spirit of service have strengthened Folsom and touched countless lives. It is an honor to recognize District 3 resident Vijay Bhaskarjana Legata with the 2026 Spirit of Folsom Award. Congratulations.

Namaste, everyone. It's an incredible honor to receive this award, but there are so many other people doing a lot more service to the Folsom City, State of California, our beloved United States. I'm just representing here, that's all. My Indian community really, this is There are a lot of people in my Indian community, like ,, and here, ,, a lot of people. They're doing an incredible service, too. So it's just, for me, I feel like this is just a recognition of the services from the Indian community and everything. So yeah, thank you all. It's amazing.

This is better, right?

Congratulations to our award recipients tonight. In addition to tonight's presentation, our Spirit of Folsom award recipients will also be recognized on the website, on social media, in newsletters, and on a banner display at City Hall. So that concludes the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. And I did notice we had a school board member and also Supervisor Rodriguez here who helped start this. So I wanted to thank them for being here tonight too. Thank you all for coming out to support our spirit of wholesome award winners.

Yes.

All right, and that will take us to our consent calendar this evening. I'll look to my colleagues. We have requests to speak on items number 6 and 13 this evening. I'll also be pulling item number 5. Any other items to pull off the consent calendar this evening?

No.

Mr. Mayor, I'll move approval of the consent calendar absent items 5, 6, and 13.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

All right, I've got my list. Council members Kozlowski? Yes. Leary? Yes. Rorbaugh? And Aquino?

Yes.

And that takes us to item number five.

Item number five is resolution number 11691, approving a policy for remote participation in city council meetings in compliance with Senate Bill 707.

Yeah, I just had a quick comment on this and open it up for discussion. In the policy, right now we have a public comment procedure that says participants may be requested to identify themselves by name before providing comments. When I first started coming to council years ago, people were asked to identify themselves with a name and an address when they came up. I think if we're going to open this up to remote participation, we open ourselves up to remote participation. at large it's not just residents of folsom and so one of the things i would like to say is that we request participants identify themselves by name and also request to identify themselves on whether they're a folsom constituent or not they don't have to obviously give us their name or or identify whether they're a constituent but i think it would help us to understand whether it's a constituent making a request of their council which we represent or if it's somebody from outside of our community, especially since we're basically being forced to open up our meetings to Zoom comments at large.

I think that's fair. That sounds fair.

I have some concerns about that in that our agenda is pretty much open to the public anyway so people who show up here aren't necessarily from here and we've had that happen a number of times over the past year I would say people and it's it's fairly rare but I don't know how much more that would impact our discussions or decision making in that people who don't necessarily live in the community may be impacted if they participate in any kind of events or programs within the city. So I guess I don't see that that's a critical need. I don't totally object to it. I just think that, you know, as it is, people outside of the community sometimes comments and speak about events or things that they'd like to make us to make decisions on, you know, I'm thinking of, I like the soccer leagues, you know, the people with. The soccer league do not live here in Folsom, but they organize games here in Folsom. Recently, we had somebody here representing a group of people that live here in Folsom who does not live here in Folsom. So, I'm just not clear that that makes a huge amount of difference in my decision making. When they're presenting things that are cogent to what we're discussing.

Yeah, I think, and I bring it up particularly with remote participation. I think it's something that we should do both in chambers and remote, just so we understand whether it's somebody that we're representing or not representing. I'm not saying that people don't have interests and fulsome if they're not living here, right? But I think just the nature of remote participation means somebody can click on the Zoom link in New York or Florida and participate in our meeting. And I bring this up just because it's happened in other jurisdictions where something goes viral and a meeting then is Participated in by a lot of people from outside of the jurisdiction. So I think it would be a good policy for us to at least request That that happens and then people can choose whether they do it or not And we can make the assumption whether they are resident or not based on whether they self-identify as one or not

just don't think people necessarily take the time to bring things up in a remote meeting in a distant city from where they live and they generally explain why they're here discussing the item so you're inviting that to happen i think by saying it that wasn't a jinx i'll let you know what i'm going to do for what it's worth i think people that show up here at our meetings live

forego some level of anonymity even if they don't want to identify themselves and putting people that maybe participate by voice only over the phone on somewhat equal footing is not an unreasonable request. And we can't force anybody to identify themselves so it's a request only ultimately.

And Mr. Mayor, if I could just weigh in and say we have to treat both categories of public speakers equally. So if we are going to have the policy for remote participants, it has to apply equally to people who come to the meeting. And of course, as everyone said, it can just be a request.

Perfect. So I will move staff recommendation with the addition that we request that they identify whether they're a resident or not.

I'll second.

Please call the roll.

Council Members Kozlowski?

Yes.

Leary? Yes. Rohrbach? Yes. Aquino? Yes. And Rathel?

Yes. That takes us to item number six.

Okay, item number six is resolution number 11694. This is approving the Historic District Commission's recommendation for approval of a design review and density bonus application for the Sutter Lofts projects, which are located at 807 and 809 Sutter Street, and the related determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. This was pulled at the request of Speaker Paul Kerfell.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. It's not so much the project, it's the parking. And just because the state has mandated that, you know, if you live close to the projects near a light rail station or public transportation, you don't have to have parking. Parking has been over a two decade, not two years, two decade problem in the district. and we don't wanna see another project come along that already contribute to a problem. So I would like you to consider that when you start going to these non-exempt parking projects. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, Paul.

I do have a question for staff on this matter. Not sure who I'm asking you. Right now, I think there's four parking spots in that location from the packet, and there's going to be two after the project's done. Do you know how they're going to disseminate that?

I don't know how they're going to disseminate it. And Desmond Parrington is here as well. He might have more information, but two parking spaces and one bicycle parking space is what is being provided.

And the parking that will be available storage in general, not just one. So the parking that will be available is that the garage is.

No, that would be on site to two parking space and bike provided on site.

But there's six units, correct? So assuming that. the fourth, fifth, or sixth unit might have a car, they'll just have to find street parking. OK.

Yes, we can't require them to provide it offsite.

Right. And this is a state mandate. or not a mandate.

Yes, it's a state law that precludes us from requiring parking. They are providing two spaces and bicycle parking. Bicycle parking we would require, but they're providing two spaces above and beyond what would be required by state law, which is nothing.

OK.

Zero.

Does Desmond, I don't see him.

He's hiding.

So we don't know at this moment. Maybe you can get back to me because I'm curious of how they're going to divide who gets those two spots.

for six units sure that was my i would assume they're they're paid spots but yeah i'll follow up let you know can i follow that up with them of course parking related question so i understand that the law doesn't allow us to mandate parking for a new development but am i assuming correctly that the current four parking spaces are used by let's say the employees at bella macy so an existing business that's there now we're removing some of their parking Can we does the law allow us to prevent that?

I'm looking around to see if we have an applicant representative in the room that can talk to how those spaces are currently being used for the business and and I don't see them in the room. So I can't answer that question.

Okay. So, then the other question. We can't require them to add parking for the new development. Can we prevent them from taking parking away from an existing development, existing building that's already on the property?

I'm guessing it's a pre-existing non-conforming situation where we don't have, at the time that the original development was done, we didn't have a parking requirement that we could point to, but I don't have that information either.

And is Desmond here? Because I know he sent me an email. But I just want to make sure I understand this density bonus thing. So on page 43 of the packet, it says the project involves a density bonus bringing the total number of dwelling units allowed from four to six units total in exchange for restricting one unit for low income households for a period of at least 55 years. But our current municipal code, which I know that we're going to be repealing and replacing that chapter, says the city shall grant a density bonus to an applicant or developer of a housing development consisting of five or more dwelling units. So I guess maybe I'm just not understanding this correctly. I thought that meant that five is kind of the base number. And then when you do the density bonus, that gives you additional units. is starting at four with the density bonus, it gets to six. So does that then satisfy the municipal code?

I think it does. Desmond and I talked about this this afternoon, and I frankly was initially reading it the way you did, but he described that when the applicant came in, the applicant came in with a proposed project to include six units. That was the proposal. Because this is a housing development project and particularly because it's a housing development project involving affordable units, we have to start with the proposal and work backwards from there. So the proposal was for six units and working backwards, we also have to combine the state density bonus law with the Housing Accountability Act. And so there are a few provisions in the Housing Accountability Act that prevent us from relying on the four units to say you do not you cannot apply or get a density bonus. So in particular, there's a section that says the receipt of a density bonus or any associated incentive or concession is not shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance or in conformity with our ordinance. And so There's a separate provision that says any housing project has basically you'll recall from other housing development appeals that have come before the council that in order to deny a housing project, you would have to make certain health and safety code findings. And the Housing Accountability Act specifically says inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan does not count. And so that's really what we're looking at is the base density would allow four units. And so under the Housing Accountability Act, we are not allowed to consider that as a reason to deny the request. Got it.

Okay. Thank you.

I had some other questions about this and that was, there aren't really assigned spaces in the historic district for each individual business or home. And so if you're counting the spaces that a business should have, you know such as uh in the expectation that they have two or four or whatever it they still don't have assigned spots in the district which is why we have a parking garage so and i think that's available 24 7 so residents of adjoining you know the complexes such as we're discussing here or other restaurants have space that isn't also allocated in the parking garage but that was deemed a necessity to provide parking for people who are either visiting resigning or working there so i i don't know if you can count those spaces in the parking garage as available spaces overall but it's really difficult when you don't even have assigned spaces to begin with, unless they're in your driveway.

I apologize. I am not familiar with who the applicant is in this particular project.

If you'd like, I could speak to that. My apologies. I didn't realize this got pulled off consent. So, yeah, the applicant in the project under AB 2097, which was passed a few years ago, projects that build within a half mile of a light rail station are not required to provide parking. Currently, there's four parking spaces there now. They are preserving two of them, but the others, in order to do the project, including the storage area for their solid waste, They eliminated 2 of the of the parking spaces. They are, however, providing a a an area for. for bicycles and for bike parking and electric bikes as well. So I believe the applicant's anticipating folks who are renting the units. And we've put conditions in there as an advisory based on feedback that we have got from the HTC, an advisory that Sutter Street only provides three-hour parking so that residents are aware of that. um and that um and then in addition uh the uh um i think that was the that was the main advisory condition on there the uh the i'm not sure how they are divvying up the responsibility for the the parking to the units because there's six units there and only two spaces

Are you talking about parking spaces that are off street parking spaces that are allocated for this?

That is correct, yes.

And so are a lot of those in the alley and how would, I guess it wasn't clear about the example that another business had lost space to accommodate the increase in spaces needed for that site.

So they are not required to provide any parking spaces under, like I mentioned earlier, under AB 2097. They have provided or two spaces remain that they've incorporated as part of their project. I do not know and the applicant did not explain at the time how they are allocating those two spaces between the commercial business and the residential units there. Because again, this is a development that's at the rear of an existing parcel. So because we can't require parking, we didn't ask them how they are addressing the distribution of the two parking spaces between the units or between the units and the commercial business.

So again, these are off street parking spaces.

These are off street, two off street parking spaces, yes.

And they didn't, I guess they're not being asked to work things out with existing businesses? you know, a new development?

If I could add. It's common ownership between.

They own both the commercial buildings as well as this new residential building. So that's a matter for those businesses to take up with the owners.

Okay, so that part wasn't clear, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other comments on this item?

Thank you, State of California.

Thank you state of California. Yeah, we've had and really we've had businesses down there without parking. For a long, long time, and this project actually isn't even requesting further concessions and incentives, which they would be entitled to under density bonus that they could very well be eligible to for. So I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation. 2nd, please call the roll.

Council Members Kozlowski?

Yes.

Leary? Yes. Rohrbaugh? Yes. Aquino? Yes. And Rathel?

Yes. And please call the next item.

Okay, that takes us to consent item number 13. This is resolution number 11707. This is a resolution rescinding prior resolution 8990 and adopting a revised policy governing the receipt and distribution of tickets and or passes. This was pulled at the request of Speaker Chad Vanderveen. Chad, come on down.

Good evening, Council Members, Mr. Whitmire, Ms. Fremantle. I am a Folsom resident. Regarding resolution number 11707, I just have one question, well, several, but really, why now are we doing this? And in the spirit of transparency, I'm wondering if this policy review was initiated because the city received tickets to the upcoming Dinner on the Bridge. I think the public should know if the city received tickets, and if so, when they were received, how many, whether they've already been distributed, who determined the recipients, and when exactly the city first determined Resolution 8990 needed to be amended. Also, the event website states the City of Folsom is managing road closure and associated traffic control measures. So I also think the public deserves to know why they are paying to close down Rainbow Bridge for 16 hours for a party accessible to the public only through a lottery system and a minimum $700 entry fee. the public should also know how much the bridge closure will cost them and they should know why the city is listed as a platinum sponsor and what that sponsorship cost thank you Thank you.

I have another question that I just wanted to get clarified because I've gotten a number of questions about this event. And under what circumstances does the city receive tickets? Are they generally given to the city as a courtesy to encourage city employees and or council members to attend or in return for services? And I think that an answer to that would be helpful. Thank you.

I appreciate the question, appreciate the opportunity to respond. This is a unique situation being it's the 80th birthday of the city of Folsom as well as the Chamber of Commerce. And so this was an opportunity to celebrate that. As far as the community benefit, one of the things that we considered was, is there an aspect of this event that will bring people to the downtown that will benefit the businesses and those in the area who want to participate? And the fact that this event is offering a free drone show to the public is actually pretty cool. We met with the downtown businesses in advance of this to see how they felt about it, to see if this was something that they could see value in. And in the meeting I attended, it seemed generally well um thought of and i think some of them the businesses are encouraging folks to come down so in many ways that's why the city was interested in being involved in this as uh related to a sponsorship it's basically the in-kind services that the city is providing for the road closure and everything that pertains to that and once again the decision was made is does it provide a public benefit and in our opinion it did and so um i don't know were there other questions that i missed why the revision of the policy now Well, we want to make sure that we have things up to date. This situation caused us, hey, what is our policy? Our city attorney reviewed the policy, and I think there's been some changes over time, and it's just to make sure that we're current. I don't know, Madam City Attorney.

Yes, thank you. I had the opportunity to review the regulations from the FPPC that govern this exact situation, and it looked like there were at least three amendments since the last time that our policy was reviewed, so it was a good opportunity to bring it forward. None of the amendments changed the core functioning of the policy. It was just some technical amendments, for instance, modernizing who could receive a ticket from immediate family to a guest, for instance, and things of that nature. Thank you.

i think there was one other question of what other events or types of events does the city receive tickets to i know i got an invite to the 50 transportation management tma transportation management agency the event that's coming up in november i was told the city gets two free tickets and so that would just be one example but i'm sure there are others that we get tickets to that i've probably been to and or other my colleagues have been to before

I think it would be helpful to clarify that when council members or elected officials are given tickets by any organization to an event that we have to report them on our form seven hundreds tickets that come through the city. You know, that's sort of still an outstanding question. It would seem reasonable that if council member is given a ticket, even though it came through the city, that it should be reported on our form 700 unless elected officials volunteer to pay for them themselves.

Well, so this policy actually talks about a different reporting mechanism, which is specifically authorized by the Political Reform Act. So there is a reporting mechanism. The form is called Form 802. The city clerk's office maintains those and posts them on the website. One of the changes that is included in the update to this policy is giving the clerk's office 45 days from the receipt of tickets to post those. So any time that one of the council members or another designated official would would receive such a ticket they would need to report that to the clerk's office there would be one my understanding is one form 802 for any specified event there would have to be a listing of the public purpose which is you know there's a laundry list of public purposes included in our policy who received it what is the public purpose and also the face value of the ticket So it is a separate reporting mechanism that is made public through a separate form. And this was specifically authorized by the Political Reform Act. And I checked and all of our neighboring cities handle it the same way. Thank you.

And does that include executive staff like Forum 700 reporters also? So it's not just the council that would be required to publicly report that.

Exactly. It would be the council, the city manager, and any of the department heads. Any of the line personnel would be allowed to attend. And under Form 802, it would just be required to list each department and then the number of employees or number of tickets per department.

All right. I'm happy to move item number 13.

I'll second.

Please call the roll.

Council Members Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary. Yes. Rorbaugh. Yes. Aquino. Yes. And Rathel.

Yes. Please call the next item. I think that takes us to the public hearing portion of the agenda.

Yeah, your public hearing item this evening is ordinance number 1374. This is an ordinance for the repeal and reenactment of chapter 17.102, which relates to density bonuses of the municipal code. This will be introduction and first reading of the ordinance and determination that the action is not subject to environmental review under CEQA. Okay.

Too many microphones up here. All right, good evening, Mayor Rathel, Council Members, Stephanie Henry, Housing Manager with the Community Development Department. So this evening, the presentation that I'm giving is on ordinance 1374, an ordinance of the city of Folsom for the repeal and reenactment of chapter 17.102 density bonus of the Folsom Municipal Code introduction and first reading. Thank you. So I wanted to give a little bit of background. Density bonus law was actually enacted in 1979, and it requires cities to provide density bonuses, incentives, concessions, parking reductions, and development standard waivers for housing developments that include qualifying levels of affordable or senior units. The purpose of the law is to incentivize the production of affordable housing by allowing the developers who include specified percentages of lower income units to exceed what local zoning would otherwise permit. And in general, a city must grant a density bonus and the related incentives or waivers upon request when a project meets the applicable affordability thresholds unless an adverse impact finding can be made. With regards to the city's local density bonus ordinance, we first adopted an ordinance in 2002, and we last updated it in 2005. Since that time, there's been numerous amendments to state density bonus law, as was evidenced by the attachment to your staff report that summarized many of those that were just over the last nine years. Since our ordinance is quite a bit outdated, we are proposing to repeal it and then reenact a new density bonus ordinance that does comply with state law. Before we move on to discuss the actual density bonus ordinance update, I wanted to provide a high-level overview of density bonus law. The current law allows housing projects to exceed the general plan and zoning maximum in exchange for an obligation to provide affordable housing units. And the state density bonus offers three primary benefits. First, it provides for additional units. Second, concessions or incentives, and then also waivers. And I will discuss each of these in more detail in the following slides. So with regards to additional units, this slide provides a high level overview of how that works. So if you look at the table to the right, there's three columns. The column to the left identifies the different types of projects that may qualify for a density bonus. And as you can see, there are quite a number of them. And this has grown over the years. So yeah, very low, low, moderate income households. Senior citizen housing developments, student housing, et cetera. And then the column in the middle provides the range of the required percentage of affordable units for each of those types. So for very low income, you would have to have a minimum of 5% of your units to be very low before you would qualify for a density bonus. But there's a range, 5% to 15%. And depending on that range, you get a certain percentage of density bonus. So for a project with very low income, request of 5% of those being very low, they would be eligible for 20% density bonus. And then for projects that had up to 15%, the scale slides all the way to 50% of density bonus units. So the little exhibit on the left hand side of the slide is kind of an illustration of how this works. So if there was a project that's base maximum density would be 100 units on that site. And they said that they were going to provide 10% of those units as low income. then they would be permitted to increase their density by 20 units. So that project would have 120 units available for them. In addition to additional units, there's also incentives and concessions. And a project may receive up to five incentives or concessions, which are modifications to development standards intended to offset the cost of providing affordable units. Common examples are listed here, like reduced setbacks, reduced parking, changes in building materials or design standards, or others like driveway widths or private streets. And in this slide, it illustrates how the number of concessions can work dependent on the percentage of affordable units in the project. So for example, if a project is proposing 5% of their units to be very low income, as shown in the top row, they would be allowed one concession. But if they were proposing 15% of the units to be very low, they could receive up to three concessions. And then in addition to concessions and incentives, there's also waivers. And a project may receive a waiver from development standards that would otherwise physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted concession. And common examples of waivers are like maximum building height, waiver of maximum building stories, waiver of setback requirements. And if you take that example of the building I showed earlier, the 120 units, the way this would work is if they were permitted by the density bonus law to build 120 units on their site, but they physically, they couldn't do it at three-story level, which was a requirement of the city. They could request a waiver of the story limit so that they could exceed, so they could build 120 units, if that makes sense. And finally, there's also a provision of density bonus law that actually states parking ratios. These parking ratios are listed here on this slide, and these are established by state density bonus law, and if a project's eligible for density bonus, they can defer to these requirements and override city's parking standards. And this is in addition to any incentives, concessions, waivers that they've requested. So with regards to our density bonus update, this proposal is a complete and comprehensive overhaul of the ordinance. So repealing and reenacting it is beneficial to us so that it will align with the significant changes to state law. So instead of, referencing state law as our previous ordinance did. We strip out a lot of that here and we just reference state law. We don't identify all the statutory language in our own ordinance. And we just simply kind of discuss a high-level overview of what is allowed under density bonus law and kind of refer folks back to the actual statute to figure out that complicated maze of tables of what densities, concessions, and incentives they'd be permitted, et cetera. And we also remove like language that had definitions in it if state law already had the definition. So we didn't have contradictions with definitions. So the goal is to avoid redundancy, maintain consistency with future legislative amendments and provide a streamlined framework for staff and applicants. The key updates include like I said, limiting the definitions to those not included in state density bonus law, removing the specific statutory language and directly refer to state law, clarify density bonus calculations, require an affordable housing agreement, and outline application requirements. And before I move on, I also wanted to point out that you guys received a revision sheet this evening. After the staff report was written and published, there has been a change, a proposed change to section 17.102.060. of the proposed ordinance. As you can see, the proposed ordinance referenced specific types of documents that could not be permitted to be required as part of reviewing and approving a density bonus application. And this revision kind of simplifies it back to actually what state law calls out and just basically says studies and is not very specific. And thank you, Mayor Rathel, for helping us with this revision. So where we are tonight, we are at the first reading of the ordinance. We hope to bring this back to you on September 22nd for second reading and adoption. If it's adopted, the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after adoption, and then we will be required to send it to California Department of Housing and Community Development so they can review the ordinance for consistency with state law. And with that, staff is recommending that the council approve the proposed revisions that I just went over, make a finding that the proposed ordinance update is not subject to CEQA, and introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance 1374. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Stephanie, and thanks to staff for working with me today. I'm not opposed to density bonus law. I think this law has really led to some mixed affordability projects and leads to less concentration of affordable housing. And there's a lot in this law, it's very complicated, that steps up the incentives, that steps up the bonus calculation based on how many affordable units are being provided, which I think on the face of it is a very good thing. But this waiver provision that's in there is like waving a red flag in my face just because I've seen it abused so many times that this unlimited waivers. um that folks can then come in even if they're qualified for like the very lowest level and it's not clear in law what's an incentive versus what's a concession versus what's a waiver and it drives me nuts and so i appreciate staff kind of going with the more instead of going with the case law that's out there currently which could be changed or overturned in the future basically saying that this is this is what the state law says and i just encourage staff to push back as much as we can on those waivers and the constructability the proof of the burden of proof is on the city to push back and say that something's not constructable but they state law really does transfer that burden to us so just would encourage staff to push back on those waivers as much as we can and make the applicant actually qualify for an incentive or concession i'll open it up for questions Council Member Leary.

I want to thank you. I think that clarified a lot of this process and why we're looking at adopting this. I just wondered if there are any projects right now in process that this would apply to?

Well, we just had the Sutter Law Project, so that applies to that. So that's the most current project. We don't have any other projects that we have applications for. We have past projects that we've applied this to.

Okay. So this just updates your application of the law to be compliant.

And we have been using state law. I mean, we've had to defer back to state law. but we actually planned on updating this ordinance, I don't know, six or seven years ago when we were going to have the update to the zoning code and just do an ordinance update with that, but since it's been delayed and since HCD is, you know, looking at us and saying, how come you haven't updated your ordinance? We were actually planning on doing it before they reviewed our progress, but we just felt like we needed to get it updated now ahead of the zoning code ordinance.

Okay, and just in reference to what Mayor Rathel was pointing out, have there been incidents where people have not complied with the requirements?

Not in the city of Folsom. I mean, we've had our density bonus, to be honest with you, several of our density bonus projects have concessions to have less dense units than were permitted. And they've had very small requests for incentives, maybe like reduced parking for bicycles or a couple other small, minor concessions. We haven't had anybody at abuse it here, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Kozlowski?

Yeah, thank you. So relative to our discussion of 807 and 809 Sutter Street, the reduced parking that's described based on the type of housing, that's for areas that are outside of the zones around our light rail stations. Just for clarity for the public so they understand. And so my question is, how do those reduced counts compare to what would otherwise be required? If somebody can...

Just the center project you're referring to had a 0 parking requirement.

It's got an overlay of state law that gives it a special distinction because it's within a quarter mile of the light rail station. I'm saying that the density bonus reduction in parking counts would apply outside of that zone. Generally in Folsom if somebody brought a project like this forward and my question is just how does the one for one one and a half for two or three how does that compare to what might otherwise be required if they weren't eligible for the density bonus because of the dwelling size and type yeah, I think I think

Our city attorney is looking up the requirement right now.

So while we're dragging that one out, and this maybe is for the city attorney, the turn of phrase that you replaced at the mayor's request leans into state law language that refers to studies, reports and studies. the the things that we had there were real specific what they're saying is something that's looser but is there a meaning to report or study or is that really just standing in for we can't ask for anything else so we can ask for documentation so we can ask them we can we can ask for a documentation but not like a separate report or study beyond

beyond what would be permitted under state law.

So an alternative design, in my mind, doesn't fall under reports or studies. So we could still theoretically ask for that? No. That's in case law, unfortunately.

That's why I'm asking. Yeah, so there is a case on point that did interpret this provision, and the language that's stricken came directly from the case. But these cases are overturned with some frequency, and the legislature has amended the density bonus law almost every year since the year 2000. And so we wanted to try to recognize the fact that they're moving the goalposts on a regular basis. And so right now, given the state of case law, alternative designs are not allowed. Stay tuned, because next year it could potentially be allowed. Who knows?

so the use of the somewhat catch-all type of comment reports and studies is that really intended to i mean aside from some kind of documentation what what does that leave room for it was intended to increase the flexibility for staff to uh basically request additional materials um

By and large, the applicant has additional information that they would not have to, for instance, pay consultants to create. I think paying extra money is something where the courts tend to look at that dividing line because, of course, they're doing an affordable project, so every penny they spend To give the city information is a penny they cannot spend to make an affordable unit. So that's sort of where the policy is directing it. So we can request for additional information if we think we need it. And we just tried to provide the maximum amount of flexibility for staff. Okay.

I did ask for can we put in there, you know, the specific things that we can request, right? Like, what do we think we can request and what does that look like? But that could change next year.

That's chasing the ghost also. Yeah. So, we kind of moving target. I got a message received with regard to the parking.

Yeah.

So, is that a dramatic reduction in what would normally be required?

So off-street parking requirements are contained in Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.57.040. And this multiple family structures and complexes, I think that's probably the most equivalent. It says One and five tenths, or I guess one and a half spaces per unit. So it's pretty consistent. And there are different requirements for single family, two family, residential condominiums, but I think this is mostly targeted to apartments or condos. So it's roughly equivalent.

Okay, so it's not tied to the bedroom count?

No, but best practice is to tie it to the bedroom count in moving forward when we update that section. We will be looking at doing that, you know, not necessarily directly as they've done here, but just based on parking studies and best practices. Gotcha.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we have any requests to speak this evening?

You have no request to speak on this item.

Going once, going twice. We have closed the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion or any more comments.

I will move the introduction and first reading with the revised language and determine that the action is not subject to environmental review under CEQA.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council Members Kozlowski. Yes. Leary. Yes. Rorba. Yes. Aquino. Yes. And Rathal.

Yes. That takes us to old business. Please take calls next time.

Yeah, old business item number 16. This relates to the Castle Park Playground renovation project. There are three resolutions underneath this item. I won't read the full title of each, but it is resolution number 11699, which is just ratifying city manager's contract authority. Resolution number 11700, again addressing city manager's authority to execute the contract change orders. And resolution number 11701, authorizing an appropriation of donation revenue and an additional appropriation.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I'm Brad Nelson, Park Planning Manager. The item I have before you this evening is the Castle Park playground renovation that's the project closeout. So a little bit about the legacy of the project. This was originally built and dedicated on December 10th of 1996. The castle themed wooden playground served the community for 30 years before reaching the end of its useful life. And the renovation preserved the park's castle identity and it also continued the community build tradition. So why did we renovate? The 30-year-old wooden structures had basically reached the end of their life. There was no replacement parts that were available. Our park maintenance staff was building things and it just became untenable to continue the structure. So renovation is needed to support current safety and accessibility requirements and also to continue the public use of the park. So we did have a community-led design process. We listened to the community at two community workshops where we gathered input on the character, the features, the accessibility of the park, and the experience the residences wanted in their renewed playground. We also were guided by a project subcommittee during the design visioning process. included some of our members on the subcommittee were Council Member Rohrabach, former Park and Recreation Commissioner Wagner, and also Joanne Brosh, who represented Folsom Kids Play for Generation. We did have then the reveal in fall of 2025, and that was the first look at what the renewed Castle Park might look like. So these were some of the images from those community outreach meetings where we let children of all ages, I should say, draw what they envisioned for Castle Park. We then had the community build. We had more than 1500 volunteers powering this community build, which occurred April 7th through the 12th. Neighbors, families, community groups, skilled volunteers, some not so skilled volunteers, people who learned a lot. Everybody brought enthusiasm for sure. And we had thousands of hours of hands-on work at Castle Park. We had over 1541 volunteers and over 6000 hours contributed to the community build. This is. It was truly an amazing experience, though we did have a few challenges. We had some weather disruption during that time, and we did things like we moved some of the rock that we were planning to use elsewhere in the structure to sort of stabilize the wet ground so people weren't slipping around on it. And that, of course, had to be removed before we could install the new grass. We also required more supervision and support from our construction teams, including Leathers and CAIA. A little bit about our donations and our community's support. We received over $68,000 in cash contributions from Kids Play for Generations, the Folsom Middle Management Group, and Little Folks University. That requested donation appropriation, which is included in tonight's resolution, reduces the amount needed from the existing fund 609 balance. We also had community partners and businesses who provided meals for the volunteers, construction services, event support, equipment, and other in-kind contributions. We received all that from a total of 54 local businesses, and the donations and in-kind services totaled $259,000, which is really amazing. We also had some really good news this afternoon, which we weren't expecting. We received an additional $20,000 from Folsom Kids Play for Generations.

Does the $259,000 include the additional $20,000?

It does not. Okay, so $279,000? Yes.

Okay, great.

This was last minute, so we didn't change the staff report. These are some special recognition from some of our community partners I just wanted to call out a few of them Brian Wallace art Brian Wallace did the artwork for the t-shirts for the community build and he truly captured the essence of that special sense of place that Castle Park in those t-shirts and I thought that was really I think special also Joanne brush with Folsom kids play for generations she started she was involved in this project from the very beginning and and continues with the project through today. And I also wanted to thank the Friends of Folsom Parkway. Their contributions and their efforts were just really, truly amazing. Somebody from Friends of the Folsom Parkway was out there literally the morning of the grand opening, adding some just little special touches with a drill and a hammer.

It was really amazing.

These are our project costs, so the design and engineering was $174,000, construction was 477, and then our materials and supplies was 497. So the total project cost was $1,149,000. Just to be clear, the site landscaping and the irrigation repairs, those were paid out of the park maintenance operating budget, and they were not included in the overall summary table above. The project funding sources, so the appropriations requested this evening as part of the staff report was the Leathers Contract Amendment, which was for $19,000, the CAIA change orders, which was for $88,000, additional project support costs, so that was things for tools. I think we paid for the... the trailer the construction trailer that was out there just construction fencing that was thirty seven thousand dollars and then the donation revenue which was sixty eight thousand dollars and so the total appropriations requested this evening is two hundred and fourteen thousand dollars the um funding Source, thank you. The funding sources were Fund 609, which is the Park and Recreation Equipment Capital Fund, so $945,000 from that. Fund 276, which is the Measure A Fund, that was $135,000. And then the donations, not including the $20,000, was 68,000. So the total project funding was 1.49. So the results of this fantastic project, the completed playground delivered on the project goals, course goals that we set forth at the beginning. The first one was safety. It was a renewed structure designed for the current safety compliance and really for long-term public use. We have improved accessibility. We went beyond just the basic requirements of ADA and provided really truly inclusive spaces on the play area. We always wanted to make it distinctive, It was originally castle-themed structure, and I think we did a fantastic job maintaining that castle structure and creating a one-of-a-kind sense of place. And most importantly, I think, it's a community-owned park. So the process renewed the tradition of neighbors working together and to build something that's truly lasting. One more video. Hi, I'm Brad Nelson, Park Planning Manager for the City of Folsom. I'm excited to share an update on the Castle Park renovation project. This playground has been a beloved part of our community for nearly 30 years and holds a special memories for generations of Folsom families. Castle Park is a complete renovation of the original Folsom Kids Play Park. This project includes brand new custom playground while maintaining the unique castle theme and character that made the park so special. The goal was to create a safe, accessible, and exciting destination for children while honoring the park's legacy. This is one of my favorite features on the playground. This is our boat. There's a ton of detail. You can see the anchor, and then we have the waves splashing on the front of it, portholes on the side, which are really fun. Once you get up inside the boat, the platform and the boat actually moves back and forth, which is something sort of unexpected when you get up there. The original playground had these dollhouses or fairy houses, and we wanted to recreate them in the new plate structure. So I think we've done an amazing job with that. With the playground renovation, we really wanted to increase the accessibility of it as well. So both the two to five playground has much more accessible play areas, and the five to 12 playground has much more accessible play areas where a wheelchair can actually get up onto the main structure and then slide down the slide and loop back around. Thousands of volunteers, local businesses, city staff, and community partners came together to create something truly special, and we're excited to share it with everyone. Thank you to everyone who helped make Castle Park possible, and we look forward to seeing families create new memories for years to come. Sorry about that jerky video there. So the recommended council action this evening is for the Leathers and Associates, ratifying the $19,537,020 amendment for a new contract total not to exceed $131,106.20. CAIA ratifying change orders one through six and authorizing change order seven, totaling $3,260 for a new contract total not to exceed $401,569. And project support, we'd like to include the additional $20,000 that we received today that was wired to us from Folsom Kids Play for generations. So instead of appropriating the $68,409 that's noted in the resolution, it would be appropriating $88,409 in donation revenue and the $37,875.80 from Fund 609 for project support costs. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

My only question is, do you think did the community build approach ultimately save money compared to a traditional construction build?

I think the community build process truly created a one of a kind energy in the community. I don't think you can put a price on that. I really don't. You sound like a politician. It was really the energy. It was raining. Those people were just soaked in water. And they were drilling. There's extension cords everywhere. And it was like, I was blown away, really, by the enthusiasm of everybody.

It feels like it would be, maybe we didn't save any money, but it was pretty comparable from what I remember the first initial bids were.

I think it was, yeah.

We never went out to bid, so we wouldn't know the true cost of- Or the estimates from you.

Yes.

I think that's what I'm- The original estimate was about 1.1, so it was right on it, yeah.

If I could, I think it's important to note that as they went into, with some of the excavation and other things, additional drainage was needed, additional pavement work was needed, and that's not necessarily uncommon when you're replacing something that has been around for a long time.

Yeah, well, I'm just happy that it's done. I know that it was a two year process. The first year, nothing was happening. So I know that we the council was pretty clear about making sure that we got this done this year. And so I'm pretty proud of you guys for stepping up and making sure that got done. Unfortunately, I think it is, you know, we have talked about this, you know, with the rain and everything that there were some other circumstances that, you know, we didn't have maybe as many volunteers as we were expecting. But we did have a lot of people out there, as you said, Brian, in the rain and in the mud and with smiles on their faces. So thank you for all the work that you did as well.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Anything? the rain was the most memorable part of it. So it's another thing you can't put a price on.

I was waiting for it in the video for sure. I was like, I know what day it starts raining. Is the $20,000 going to be used to offset?

Okay, in my headset now.

Anything else?

Okay. I'm going to blow my nose.

Sorry, bad time of the screen.

It would go to offset the funding taken out of Fund 609.

Got it. So it'll decrease what comes out of 609. So it can be used for other things. Perfect.

Oh, let me put my Larry. Yeah, I received the update that was given to the Parks and Rec Commission last month. The numbers don't quite sync with what's here, so I'm really trying to get a grip on what we've spent already and these additional asks that have a pretty wide range. so at parks and rec it was reported that uh the costs to date i assume was and this included the 259 984 in donations was 1 million 344 600 678 and so your total ask for this evening You know, it's here in 3 pieces. Can you summarize those and then give me an idea of what the final cost was? Because initially, you know, the council had approved 700,000 dollars for this project. And it's grew through the community input. Sessions into being a much larger, more expensive project. And I, I just want to. Get a feel for how we should address these kinds of issues in the future when we sort of had this ultimate goal of 1.1, which was going to be supplemented by. Donations and what we're what it's costing at this point.

does that make sense i think so i'll try to hopefully answer that the the numbers that we presented at the park and recreation park and recreation commission meeting those are preliminary a number and i i believe i mentioned during that presentation that would be we would be finalizing the numbers it's um it's fairly complex and we're trying to do three resolutions under one sort of STAFF REPORT, ONE PROJECT UMBRELLA. SO THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. AND THEN SO THEN THE APPROPRIATIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS EVENING ARE THE LEATHERS CONTRACT AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS 19,000, THE CHIA CHANGE ORDERS, SO THAT WAS THERE'S SEVEN CHANGE ORDERS TOTALLY IN $88,205. THE CHANGE ORDERS ARE ACTUALLY There's, I believe, about $5,000 more, but we had $5,000 in contingency. So the change orders you'll see in the staff report are actually, I think it's like $5,500 more. The additional project support costs, those were still kind of coming in because we needed to get a better handle on the final costs and sort of the final elements that were being installed out there. And then I don't think the donation revenue changed. So the total, excuse me, the total appropriations being requested is 214,000.

And then, so what does, is this to pay for things that have already been completed? And what is the final total? Yes. Including the donations. I was trying to get a very good idea. I mean, less than donations.

Yeah, can you go to the next slide?

I want to know what the final cost of getting this project does, so you have to include the donations.

Yeah, our goal was to highlight everything. We want to say this was an interesting experience in the sense that when we do a normal kind of bid-build project, it's here's the cost. here's what it is we had an idea of what it would be and we were counting on a variety of things to occur a one that you wouldn't have torrential rainstorm that would you know create an environment that you know we didn't get the the number of volunteers that we wanted so there was additional work after the week period of work was done that we still had to get it done so this is just um buttoning up everything uh describing here's the funding that we have in 609 fund 276 and then the donations we'll add the donation of uh 20 000 to the 68 000 bringing it to 88 000 will subtract 20,000 from fund 609. But the total project funding needed for the project is the 1,149,288 dollars. And so that's without the donation of 259,000. Is that correct? The total funds needed to pay everything for this project is $1,149,288.

Yeah, I have that, but if you add in the cost of the donations, or the value of these donations, the project actually cost closer to $1.4 million.

When you talk about the in-kind?

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, sure. I just want to have an idea of what that is, because I think if we're asked to do any more of these community, kind of our community-built projects, it's kind of like what HAPPENED WITH SOME OF THE OTHER PARKS THAT WE'VE HAD COMMUNITY INPUT FOR AND IT DRIVES UP THE COSTS AND ESPECIALLY THIS AREA NORTH 50 DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF INCOME DEDICATED TO THE PARKS.

NO, FAIR. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO ADD THAT AND IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES IF WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE TO WORK WITH ALL THESE It'd be a lot easier, but we work with the people and we came up with something that is actually really, really cool. One of the things that I thought was pretty neat on Sunday, my son got invited to play some night games at Castle Park and they were having such a good time. They're like middle school age, but before somehow they heard about it and then their older brothers came and they were playing tag and others. So I apologize if they irritated you, but they really enjoyed the park.

You mean the neighbors? Irritated the neighbors?

Probably so. They have a gift.

Okay. Thank you. Just one clarification, and it doesn't change your point, Barbara, was you said the original budget was $700,000. It was actually $800,000. Yeah, just...

I think we approved this.

Council Member Aquino. All right. Do you need three separate motions for these?

I think yes, with the proposed amendment to .

I'll make a motion that we approve resolution number 11699.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Kozlowski? Yes. Leary? Yes. Vorba? Yes. Aquino? Yes. And Rathel?

Yes.

I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 11700.

Second.

Council members Kozlowski?

yes larry yes rorba akino yes and raythel yes i will also move resolution number one one seven zero one with the modification to the two values shown to read appropriation of eighty eight thousand four hundred nine in donation revenue and an additional appropriation of seventeen thousand eight hundred and seventy five dollars and eighty cents from the park and recreation equipment capital fund fund 609. second please call the roll

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

Yes. And thank you, Brad. That takes us to new business. Please call the next item.

Okay, you have five new business items this evening. The first of those five is item number 17. This is receive and consider a proposal from the Rotary Club of Folsom for placement of an American flagpole in the historic Folsom Station Plaza and provide direction to staff and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.

While the Rotary Club of Folsom members come down, I'm just going to put on the record that I am a member of the Rotary Club of Folsom. I do not serve on the board of the Rotary Club of Folsom and have no input or decision-making authority on what projects they recommend.

I will ditto that as well. Also a member, not on the board.

Well, to that end, good evening, Mayor and City Council, Rebecca Neves, Public Works Director. This evening, I have the pleasure of introducing this item and the project advocates for the Rotary Club of Folsom. This evening, we have Mr. John Basiaco and Chuck Thompson, as well as Connie Thompson, representing the Rotary, who will come up in just a moment to talk about the project following a brief introduction. So we have historically not had a flagpole in recent years, but that does not mean that we have not had one in the past. However, it was in this very celebratory year for our country for 250th year anniversary following the hometown parade, the Rotary Club did reach out to city staff in July to look at the potential of installing a permanent flagpole in the historic Folsom Station Plaza STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE ITEM BEFORE APPLICANT ON THE ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO RECEIVE YOU THIS EVENING TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FROM AND CONSIDER A PROPOSAL FROM THE ROTARY CLUB FOR THE FLAG THE ROTARY CLUB FOR THE FLAG POLL AND ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL POLL AND ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL DIRECTION TO STAFF AS WELL AS DIRECTION TO STAFF AS WELL AS FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE CEQA PER FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 AND 15303 OF THE CEQA TITLE 17 AND 15303 OF THE CE Recently, the project applicants provided an informational presentation to the Historic District Commission on September 2nd. We're fortunate enough to have them back this evening for this item. And with that, I'll pass the mic over to Mr. Basiaco, who is the president of the Rotary Club of Folsom.

Thank you so much and hello and good evening council members and city staff. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity this evening to share what we believe is a very exciting project for our community and the Sutter Street area. Just looking at that picture right there. I'm sure it makes everyone here feel old. It does for me. My name is John Basiocco. I'm currently serving as the president of the Rotary Club of Folsom. I've been a resident here for 35 years now and until recently was a business owner. I love this area. I've spent many breakfast, lunches and dinners in this area of town, just like many of you. And as many of you know, the Rotary Club of Folsom was established way back in 1953. So we have almost 80 years of service into our community, and we believe we are the right people to go and work on a project like this. Our Rotary International motto is service above self, and this will be a project that does take a lot of time, a lot of energy, and a lot of fundraising, and we are up for the task for that. I'm here tonight with some fellow Rotarians. to introduce you to what we're calling the Rotary's Legacy Flag Project on Sutter Street. And as I mentioned, we have Chuck and Connie Thompson here with me tonight, who were early identifiers of this project and can shed a little more light on what we're planning on doing. Chuck?

Absolutely. So back in 1877, you can see there was pre-existing flagpole there. This picture was actually, you know, we shared that with Zachary Vaccarisa, the director of the History Museum. He says, yes, that is definitely a flagpole. And the reason you don't see a flag there is because the shutter speeds, the thermal exposure speeds back in those days were about 15 seconds. And with the smoke going, you can see there's wind, the flag would be pretty much invisible. As if you're taking a long exposure, you move over to here. He wouldn't be in the photo. So we're wanting to bring this flag back. And when Connie and I... Let me go back. It's not on there. When Connie and I hung this flag at the hometown parade, it struck a chord with us. Joe Gagliardi, he said, hey, you know what? There's no flag over the historic Folsom. And it really struck a chord with us, and we decided to pursue this. So what we decided to pursue is, well, let's bring it back to Folsom. And we're proposing a, well, that's the plaza as you see it today, but we're proposing this 70-foot pole with a very prominent American flag and the California state flag as well, too. That location has been designated. We coordinated with the FHDA. We said that would not interfere with the ice rink, you know, or, you know, ice rink operations. And... Sorry, I got to pee really bad here. But, you know, initially we talked about a downward lighting from the halyard lighting. We've revised that with the upward lighting because of the cost and also the efficiency and the maintenance of halyard lighting would be extremely expensive, but upward lighting would be much easier to deal with. So and also FHDA has agreed to lower that flag as needed to half mask. And there's actually an app that provides notifications when half mask is required. John, do you wanna mention any more about this?

I would just say too that the fundraising is just getting started on this. We do have some major donors hopefully lined up to help us really participate in this project. And our goal, I think on one of the slides there, if you can move over to that one, is to also make some bricks available. There's a couple designs here that we just put so you could take a look at how it might look, and we were hoping to get maybe 50 to 100 of these, depending on interest of local individuals and business owners. The price point on those are probably around $500, is our thought, and that will go for the paying installation, everything to do with the flag, as well as the continued maintenance of the flag and replacement of these flags on an ongoing basis that the Rotary Club would be taking on over the years, so it would be a long, A LONG-TERM PROJECT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR US.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO PLACE A PLAQUE THAT WOULD MATCH, GO ALONG WITH THE HISTORIC FOLSOM THEME, A RECOGNITION PLAQUE RECOGNIZING THE ROTARY CLUB OF FOLSOM AS WELL AS OUR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PROJECT. Because, to be honest with you, the club doesn't have enough money to cover the cost of this project. It's $40,000, give or take. Plus, we also want to provide future maintenance, flag replacements, as well. Since we want to call it a Rotary Club, a Folsom Legacy Project, well, it only deems fair that we would also do the flag replacements in future. And the flag replacements will happen, you know, approximately once a year. May get, you know, give or take a little bit more, a little more or less on that. But now, since we found out by law we're supposed to fly the California flag, unless the city ordinance can override that, we're also looking at having to replace two flags a year. So that's any excess that we do receive in the contributions towards this project will go towards those future flag replacements.

John? Just to see if you have any questions. We're here for that.

I have a question. Yes, ma'am. So you answered who's going to replace the flags, but who is going to be responsible for repairs, replacements of the poles, light? You mentioned lighting. Any surrounding improvements?

No, they were declared by Folsom Will. Absolutely.

Is that?

And in fact, we've actually worked with a lighting engineer that came out with, and we met with them, and they recommended the ideal up lighting system for this. And a lot of these services were donated to our club as far as like helping, they want to see this legacy project come together. And one thing that we've noticed is as we mentioned this project to many, many people, one thing has been common is like, my gosh, why didn't we think of that? And when John was talking about this brick, you know, contribution brick format, we're actually looking at the one in the far right as being the preferred one. You know, of course, that border of ring, ring of bricks could be, you know, expanded. That's just an AI example of what we're looking at.

So the installation, the cost of the installation, the 40,000 is the cost of the installation and the pole and those bricks around it?

Yeah, that's correct.

Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate your desire to do this. I just wanted to confirm, it may have been mentioned, but the area where this will be installed is currently a dirt area. Will that entire dirt area be paved?

That's up for discussion. We know the area around the flagpole where the bricks will be will be paved or concrete We'd like to discuss that paving that whole section because it's been brought to our attention at the Historic District Commission meeting that a this dirt is kind of a trip hazard There's an edge of concrete there, and then when it rains, you know when it rains you got mud and whatever So we'd like to look at that look at that option absolutely

This is a great project, and thank you for bringing it forward and sign me up for a brick.

Awesome. Thank you, Mike.

Thank you for wearing your shirt.

Yeah, I thought we were going to run Chuck up the flagpole there. Council Member Aquino?

I also think it's a great project. And in your rendering where you do show that planter area filled in, I actually think that is a brilliant idea. Because if you go there during the farmer's market, people are walking through there. It is a tripping hazard. It's a complete disaster. And so I think that is a much better use of that space is just to fill it all in with concrete or bricks or whatever. So thank you.

I look forward to all that rebar work. Council Member Leary?

No comments, thanks.

Perfect. We have one request to speak tonight. So that's all of our questions. Thank you so much. We got one request to speak tonight.

thank you very much and one one thing that we brought up is also that you know Rotary Club of Folsom is donating this flagpole to the city it's being placed on city property we're asking hey is there any possibility of a waiver of the permit fees because we've been told I think Allison said hey these permit fees will be approximately 1200 to 1400 dollars so like you know well This is just a mask.

Thank you for that reminder.

That's in the staff report too. All right, thank you guys.

Okay, your one speaker on this item is Jerry Burnell.

Good evening, Jerry Bruneau, 921 Sutter Street, Folsom, California. I'm one of the people that said, why didn't I think of that? And I intend to be a major donor. This is a phenomenal project. Rotary, I've been almost in town for 40 years, and Rotary is always out front with wonderful projects for the city. And this one tops it. I mean, this is 250 years, and we have a flag in the middle of our beautiful plaza. So my support for it, my dollar will be behind it. And thank you very much for Folsom Rotary for their proposing this project. Thank you.

So I just wanted to wrap that up as a conclusion. Staff is recommending receipt and consideration of the proposal. You just heard this evening and providing any supplemental direction to staff and a determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. If you have any follow-up questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Is there any major barrier to waiving the permit fee for something like this?

No. City Council's discretion per municipal code.

You're looking for a motion? I'm looking for a motion. To your district.

Well, I enthusiastically move that we approve the Rotary Club project to place an American flag poll and flag in our historic district and that we waive the regular permit fees for building.

Second. Do you want to also make a sequel findings?

and also make the CEQA finding? Oh, my apologies. And let me amend that to say that we believe that the project is exempt from CEQA.

And if I could, just for clarification on the fee waiver, you mentioned building. They would have to go for two permits. They would have to get a building permit and an encroachment permit. So if City Council's discretion to waive the building permit fees, just wanted to mention that encroachment permit fees.

So what are the totals on those?

A total is around $1,600.

Let me further amend my motion to take in my full meaning, which was the permits the city would normally issue, that they should not be charged for those.

So I'll second the amendments as well.

Vice Mayor, you have a comment?

Yeah. I mean, thank you for making the motion twice. I do want to comment. As far as waiving the fees, I do think it's a good idea. It's a $40,000 cost to the Rotary. and actually their willingness to maintain it over the years. Waiving the fees, doing that is, I think, we don't like to waive fees because it does cost the city some things, but I think what they're taking on is so important to the city and such a huge benefit that far outweighs those fees. So I just wanted to make that comment for the public. And thank you again to the Rotary for always being great partners and to Connie and Chuck and John for coming tonight and explaining the process and how you got here.

Please call the roll.

Council members Kozlowski?

Yes. Leary? Yes. Rorbaugh? Yes. Aquino? Yes. And Rathel? Yes.

Mr. Mayor, before the clerk reads the next item, I just have a quick question. There are several people in the audience that I know are here because of the e-bike issue. Do we happen to know if there's anybody in the audience here for the microenterprise home kitchen issue?

the other item if not i'm just wondering if we could move the e the e-bike thing up because people have been waiting here for two hours for that item council member aquino we have two members of sacramento county environmental management health department that have been here this evening waiting to give a presentation thank you yep please call the next item item number 18 is presentation on ab626 the micro enterprise home kitchen operations and direction to staff Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council, Pam Johns, Community Development Director. I'm going to give a brief overview and then turn this item over to county staff to help explain it. But MICO is kind of a funny acronym. INCORPORATED CITIES WITHIN SACRAMENTO COUNTY TO WEIGH IN ON adopting a program that would be implemented in city through the health department at the county. And this is not new. We actually talked about MECOs back in 2019 with a different group of council members. Some of you, I think Mike and Sarah were here. And at that time, we had recommended that the county opt out. And I'm going to talk a little bit about those reasons later. But essentially, after six years of having this program in effect in lots of communities throughout the state. The board is asking the cities how they feel about it now, and so that's why we're back before you. And so with that, I want to thank the county staff, Jaday Monasterio and Rolando Villarreal for being here and for helping communicate with the staff and help us understand what some of these regulations would mean and how we would interact with county staff if this were to be implemented. And so I'm gonna open up a presentation that they've prepared and then I'll come back to this. I'll introduce Janae. Just a moment. Okay, so you can either advance with the arrow or this . Okay, thank you.

Good evening, my name is Ginia Monasterio, and with me is Rolando Villareal. He's program chief for the Environmental Health Division with EMD. And I think I advance it, or does it come up? This one here is the projector. Exactly. Oh, I'm getting good at this.

And then you can either advance it.

All right, so thank you for having us here tonight. So we're gonna provide you some information of what the MECO program is, and again, it is Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Operation. I do think that the acronym is fun to say. It's one of the better ones that is out there. So in our presentation, we're just gonna talk about overview of MECOs and applicable laws, key MECO requirements, prohibitions and operational limitations, regulatory oversight, and then what the current status is in Sacramento County. So, MECO became law through AB 626 in 2019, and it allows the, if the county opts in, or the jurisdiction with the health department opts in, then all of the incorporated cities would automatically be opted in as well. There's also another law, AB 377, and this is a cleanup bill. It doesn't change anything in the MECO law, but it did provide a couple cleanup items, and that was in that same year. So what is a MECO? It's a restricted food service owned and operated by residents in their private primary home. It's considered a home restaurant. And AB 626 requires local permitting jurisdictions to formally opt in. Currently, right now, Sacramento County has remained neutral, has not taken any action, so we're effectively not opted in. So what is a private home? This is a residential building. It can be a house, an apartment, lease space where individuals reside. It must be within the primary residence. Therefore, second homes, vacation homes, boats, motor homes do not qualify. So I just wanted to go over some key MECO requirements. It is operated by a resident in their primary home. Meals need to be prepared, cooked, and served the same day. So there isn't preparation ahead of time and then keeping it for later use. It's direct service only, on-site dining, delivery, or takeout. Rental units would require owner or landlord notification, so there are some controls there for owners and landlords. There are maximum number of meals per day and per week, so 30 meals per day, 90 meals per week. If it's being operated in conjunction with the permitted compact mobile food operation, also known as sidewalk vending, then the maximum can increase to 80 meals per day or 200 meals per week. There is a maximum annual sales amount of $100,000, and that's adjusted annually for inflation. One full-time employee is allowed, plus family or household members. The permit holder must pass accredited food safety manager courses, and then others who are involved in the cooking or operations must have a food handler card from accredited providers. This is very similar to what a restaurant would be required to do. MECAs are not allowed to prepare and store food outside the home kitchen. I do have a quick question.

It's on the other side, but it said to, that's fine, it said to rental units would require owner-landlord notification. Does the owner or landlord have the authority to tell them no? Yes. Okay.

This is my technical expert right behind me. So MECOs are not allowed to prepare and store food outside the home kitchen. They may not display signs or advertise on site. They may not cater off-site. They may not engage in the slaughter of animals or serving of raw oysters. They may not wholesale food, ship food, or operate food trucks. They may not use third-party delivery such as DoorDash, Grubhub. They may not serve alcohol unless they have a valid ABC license. They may not make dairy products without CDFA license, California Department of Food and Agriculture. They may not have light of animals in the kitchen during food prep. So this would be maybe pets, dogs, cats, things like that. There are some limitations. They cannot prepare, MECOs cannot prepare foods requiring a HACCP plan, which is a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Plan. These plans are required for certain types of food prep, such as smoking, curing, using additives, and reduced oxygen packaging. They cannot use or serve any products that contain raw milk, cannot serve or use raw oysters, no additives, cannabis, CBD, or kava, and all cooked food must be used on the same day or served on the same day. So MECO is defined as a food facility under the California Retail Food Code, which means it's regulated by EMD, Environmental Management Department. Standards and penalties for noncompliance apply, just like in any other food facility within the county. It is considered a residence for building and fire codes. There are no zoning restrictions for MECO in residential dwelling. There is no change of occupancy. Nuisance ordinances may be enforced, so things like traffic and noise. Outdoor signage is not allowed. An annual inspection is conducted by EMD. And we also can do an inspection for complaints or suspected outbreaks. So currently, Sacramento County has not opted in. EMD conducted outreach earlier this year to gain feedback. We're here tonight for also to provide information so you can provide feedback to the Board of Supervisors. They will receive, Board of Supervisors will receive all the information that is, or feedback that is provided to us and we have a scheduled board date to present this to the board on October 20th. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for being here tonight and thank you for being patient with us getting to this agenda item. I'll open it up for questions.

um i don't have any questions we had extensive discussions about this back in 2019 and there is a i'm going to say conservatively a octopus of further complications that affect our zoning ordinance and the interests of our other businesses in town and and our neighbors um so it's it's a good idea for somewhere but probably not going to get support from me here questions

Yeah, in the staff report, it says there were mixed results. Can you tell me the impacts that you've seen in other locations or counties that have allowed this to happen, positive and negative? but to the neighbors to as you kind of briefly mentioned to the other restaurant actual restaurants. Any kind of that.

Yeah, we don't we don't have in fact I think that's part of your staff for the results. Some in a defer that to him to talk about but I'm happy to answer questions about the health and safety and the food portion of it in terms of the jurisdictions.

I think that's one of the questions. Have there been health and safety issues in the 17 counties that have authorized MECO for six years?

I'm going to turn this over to Rolando, and he can give you what you... Yeah, so we also participate in a subcommittee throughout the state of California. There are some complaints here and there, but not in... And the health and safety part of it, we haven't seen a whole lot having discussions with some of our partners within the other counties and throughout the state.

It does raise a question though, if you don't mind coming back to me. Sure. Those other counties, are they able to recover their cost of enforcement or inspections by way of permit fees that may come along with this program?

Yes, that's correct. So there are permit fees that will be required.

But is it a full cost recovery for the county? Because the county has its own budget challenges, and I would definitely not want to exacerbate those.

So as far as other counties and other jurisdictions, there's a wide range of different ways that MECO programs are rolled out. Some of them are subsidized. Some of them are doing pilots. So there's different ways that it can roll out in terms of cost recovery. For Sacramento County, we did include MECO in our latest fee study. So the fee that we have come up with of what would be assessed for a MECO would be fully cost recovery.

What was that proposal? I mean, is it reasonable for somebody to go into a home business like this and pay that fee, or is it prohibitive?

It's a little bit less than a restaurant annual permit fee that would be assessed because it's not a full restaurant operation. I believe the restaurant fee is around $1,600, and then a MECO fee would be close to about $1,200. So it's a little bit less. So it does cover our inspection costs. and it covers any enforcement that we would have to do, and then education outreach, all that.

Great. Council Member O'Leary.

Yeah, and this may be something that our community development director has that answer, but you may also have the information. So my understanding is that the licensure would be done through the county, so any fees that are paid by the people who are running one of these kinds of businesses would go directly to the county. And there would be no fees that go to the city in terms of licensing, although we would have costs in terms of providing code enforcement if there are complaints and problems in the neighborhood.

So the fees that would be assessed by the Environmental Management Department by the county would be for the health permit. And if there are any additional business license or any other fees that would be to the city of Folsom, then that could be assessed there.

Do you have any idea what those numbers are?

For what, a business license?

Yeah.

I do not have that information.

How about for the county for the fees?

It's about $1,200 for the health permit.

Okay, and what is the capacity of the county to monitor businesses above and beyond what already exists within the...

We absolutely can absorb the MECO permit as if they become, if the county opts in, then we would be able to permit the applicants and be able to inspect and perform all the duties as normal.

So would you need additional staff to do that? It seems like a stretch to me to add. a large number of sites to visit for health and safety reasons.

It depends on how many applicants and how many MECOs would be permitted within the county. This, let's see, I think it's Sacra San Mateo that's in the staff report, that there's 50 of them. Just to give an idea, the city, LA County has about 300. The total number of MECOs currently permitted in the state of California is 1,200. So that's in the entire state.

As opposed to about how many restaurants would we know?

In Sacramento County, we have permitted 8,000.

8,000 restaurants. Correct.

And then one of the other issues that I have concern about is people that pay cash and the city is not receiving the sales tax. And how is that moderated so that the city can be reassured that we'll get the tax from the sales in those sites?

And I don't have an answer for you on that one. I'll defer to Pam.

yeah i i think there's a lot of questions that would need to be answered if the county board of supervisors takes this up or decides to move forward at their october meeting then i think those are questions we would want to have answered through that process but we would have them apply for a business permit and we would turn them over to our auditor as one of our businesses and if they saw no tax receipts then they would know that that person was not paying sales tax

Well, no versus not, not fully reporting is, is another potential.

Sure. Along with every other restaurant that's out there or any other business that's out there, it would be the same, same approach as we use with every other business.

And then I think that there's potential for traffic. I've gotten information from three different cities today, all of whom have opposed this recently within the last few months and sent letters to the county. So some of their concerns with traffic, enforcement of business licenses, and the lack of you know actual real income or a benefit to the community when there's potential problems with noise traffic smells etc so do you have any information on that so local um ordinances would apply so nuisance ordinances would still apply So this could involve more than code enforcement and potentially cause the police department, hey, there's 30 cars parked on my street and I can't get out of my driveway because they're parked there too. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Council Member Aquino.

No questions.

I don't have any questions for county staff at this time, thank you.

have another question sure um and i'm not sure if it can be answered but maybe if the supervisors take this up it would be a question for them or him but if the county authorizes miko's what enforcement tools would fulsome still retain and i think we were kind of going around that and i appreciate you saying our local ordinances still apply but what complaint response or staffing commitment would the county provide um to support

I think we talked about this a little bit today, and the challenge is really that some of the MECO law says no zoning restrictions at the local level. And the local restrictions that we have on home occupations have limitations on things like How many customers or clients can attend? What are the hours of operation? How are people parking? And really, the county health department is going to be focused on violations that are surrounding the health permit. So are they receiving a complaint about a violation in food safety? And so that's a concern that I'm going to talk about in a few minutes, just sharing through what our local home occupation ordinance is, because I think that's a challenge. Like when you go to look online and see, you know, how these are performing, a lot of the report out is you know there's not a lot of food safety violations there's not a lot of concerns that in that regard but there's not as much information about how it affects complaints on local nuisance type of regulations and the mayor provided me with a report that said you know essentially there are very few violations that are nuisance related but the people complaining just don't like the fact that there's a A HOME RESTAURANT, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR AREA, RIGHT? SO IT'S JUST THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A FOOD BUSINESS. AND THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT WE WOULD BE DEALING WITH AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THOSE ARE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT WE WOULD BE ADDRESSING IS ARE THEY VIOLATING OUR HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE? unfortunately our home occupation ordinance is going to conflict with the miko regulation so so that's where the challenge lies and and what the other jurisdictions in sacramento county have said is you know no thank you not not at this time for that type of reason so if the county were to move forward i think it would be in our interest to make sure that we are coordinating and addressing those things so we know that those those regulations are not in conflict and that we're in alignment about how we do the enforcement. Because right now there's a lot of questions, question marks that aren't answered based on those potentially conflicting regulations.

I mean, I do like the idea actually of giving people, restaurants are hard to make successful, even the most successful ones. I do like the kind of entrepreneurial support we could give if this goes forward. But I guess my question would be then additional, could we revise our ordinance and have restrictions on what we want to say? Like maybe we only allow 10 of them throughout the city or I mean, are there things that we could provide parameters around in Folsom if the county went forward?

I don't know. I think we'd have to look into that. I think that would be challenging to do or to set that kind of a parameter.

I think definitely looking to that would be a good idea. We've been advised that limiting the number of MECOs is generally wouldn't be allowed under the current law.

Okay.

One real world example that we had to actually address and discuss at some length was an individual who was smoking meat in their backyard. They weren't serving at their home. However, you know, maybe I like the smell of roasting pork myself, but that is not a thing that you want to probably live with every single day from six in the morning until the afternoon when it's ready. So the odd backyard barbecue is a welcome experience for the neighbors maybe, but every single day, it being Smoker City, was actually a nuisance complaint that we had to deal with that was pretty slippery, honestly, based on the way the nuisance ordinances are written and what the limitations are and what we can enforce and can't enforce already. So I think this opens the door to some issues like that. That I, you know, rather us not walk into that blind alley. Thanks.

Smoking was specifically not allowed in the Mako ordinance though, right?

Yeah, that was in your slide that smoking or curing. You can't prepare barbecue.

Barbecue, yes, but smoking, if it would require a half a plant.

I don't mean curing raw meat. I mean cooking barbecue over a long period of time at a low temperature. That would be allowed. Yeah.

Can we go back to that slide? Because now I'm confused.

The smoking they're talking about is more industrial process to make a cured meat that you would sell at room temperature. Got it. That was my interpretation of this.

So if it requires what's called a HACCP plan, then those kinds of activities are not allowed. Got it.

And I do. I mean, I think we talked about this today to the previous slide says no outdoor use, but you can do outdoor dining. You can have somebody come to the house and pick up at a station so you can have outdoor activities that would not comply with the city's home occupation. So there are some limited out activities that could be outside associated with the Miko that could not be outside associated with the home occupation.

So are you saying that the MECO doesn't allow outside cooking?

No, I'm saying it does, but Folsom's home occupation ordinance wouldn't allow that as a home business if it had those kinds of impacts, the odor and nuisance beyond.

And the outdoor cooking would be barbecue and wood fire stoves. Thank you. So not general cooking.

Okay. Another question. Do you have any data on the impact on local businesses? You know, I think everybody's aware that a lot of restaurants don't last, you know, for one reason or another location or the food's not as good as people anticipated or, you know, they've changed ownership and cooks and things that used to be great aren't anymore in restaurants. And I'm wondering what the impact could potentially be on our small business owners who have restaurants here in town.

It's a great question. Unfortunately, I don't have that data with us. It's a fairly new program. So as you know, it's six years in, but each year a little bit more and more counties will opt in. So the data is definitely growing. And I would suspect in the future there would be more data on the impact to small businesses.

Can you talk a little bit about the cottage? Because you guys oversee the cottage food operations too. To me, that's the closest corollary that's been going on for how many years? What does it look like as far as regulation goes? I know we've got a number of cottage food operators that have been successful here in Folsom. I haven't heard any complaints about them. In fact, I know some members of this dais might have gone and purchased products from these operators and picked them up at their home. So maybe you could talk a little bit about that, whether it's been, had the negative impacts that were projected.

Sure. So cottage food operation is for non-perishable foods. So items like cookies, coffee, things like that. MECO, on the other hand, would include any types of food preparation. So it could include meat or potentially hazardous foods. So that's kind of the difference between the two. And as far as success with cottage food operations, we have about 300 cottage food operators that are currently permitted with our department. And the complaints that we receive are fairly low. These operators do well. Sometimes they're in the program for a couple years, then they might stop for a little bit, then they might start up again. But it really gives them a lot of flexibility with their business model because they can cook at home, or I should say prepare these foods at home and then sell them in the various areas.

I wanted to have anything you wanted to add on that yeah, and some of the cottage food operators that we have permitted I mean they you know they're in your farmers market there there you know driving that way so that you add to your you know the local economy here in this.

I think we've got a little more presentation from our staff so thank you to county staff we might have more questions for you as we work through this.

So this is just a summary of the home occupation criteria that we have in Folsom now. Just to highlight a few of the things that could potentially be in conflict with the MECO law, as just described, is that we have a focus on making sure that the business is secondary to residential use and doesn't change the residential character of the neighborhood, so you can't store any goods or supplies outside. It has to be entirely within a structure. It has a maximum percentage of the floor area of the primary dwelling to ensure that the home is not primarily a business and not a home. There's only two non-resident employees that could be on site. That's actually not in conflict, but a maximum of two clients at one time or eight clients a day would potentially be in conflict with the MECA ordinance. The hours of operation that we have locally may be in conflict with a county allowance or someone who bakes early in the morning. We have a limitation on the number of vehicles that could be parked at any one time. And so those are things I finally on the the noise or nuisance no noise smoke orders glare Electrical interference or vibrations that are discernible behind beyond the site so if you look at the kinds of things like this is just pulling images from Miko searches online of Successful businesses that are being done in other communities. So again, it's dying in pickup or takeout or you know delivery and I would say Delivery is what has the lowest impact because it's made at home and it's generally taken off site by somebody who's working as part of the business. But whether you do dine in or pick up, you could have people dining in a residence or outside of a residence that are having like, maybe it's the same as a dinner party in a neighborhood, but if you had it every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night, IT MAY BE AN IMPACT THAT IS TOO MUCH TO SURROUNDING RESIDENTS. THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WE TALKED ABOUT IN 2019 WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. THERE'S CERTAINLY A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE ABOUT HOW THESE ARE HELPING BUSINESSES get up and start, be successful, reduce their costs initially, and then potentially be able to move into some kind of a commercial space. But there's a lot we don't know in terms of how we would enforce these regulations. So if it's established in Sacramento County, EMD is the permitting agency and the enforcement agency. for the MECOs, but if they're enforcing the MECO laws and they conflict with our local laws, then it falls on the city to enforce nuisance or try to address nuisance issues. The way the law is written, it says no zoning restrictions would apply to MECOs, but that's not clear exactly how that's been implemented in other jurisdictions. We would have a business license requirement through that process. Probably a home occupation permit would be required, but again, They wouldn't be able to meet their requirements if they were doing having diners come in or regular setup for takeout that was established outside of their home. So we would then, you know, if we enforced our local home occupation ordinance, we would be limiting things here, which I believe is against the law if we have this program established. So a lot of, you know, unanswered questions in terms of how we would address or enforce our local rules. There are 17 of 58 counties in the state and two cities that now have MECOs and there are reports out. I got a report from the mayor today and I just summarized a couple of highlights from that. The significant financial benefit for food startups, Limited food safety issues have been reported. Limited nuisance complaints have been reported. But most of the complaints were that they didn't like the fact that there was a food-based business in their residential neighborhood or apartment. 11% of those businesses are dine-in, 56% take-out, and 31% delivery. So there are definitely a range of these uses being started up in these communities, and I'm sure we can dig a little deeper and learn more. But what's being asked of you tonight is whether you want to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they move forward with a MECO program in Sacramento County. And if they do, it will apply locally to Folsom, just like all other incorporated cities that don't have their own health department. And so all of the other incorporated cities have submitted letters in opposition. As soon as this came back up and the county asked back in, I think, April, May, would you like to reconsider now that we've seen how these businesses are operating and programs running, I got together with my counterparts in the incorporated cities and some of them relied on the 2019 opposition Some of them went back and had conversations with their city council. And so that's what we're doing tonight is coming back to you as a new council and asking for your direction essentially to provide a recommendation to Sacramento County. So this is not a decision, yes or no, are we going to do MECO? It's do you want to recommend to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors that they opt in or opt out at this point? You had submitted a letter as a council in 2019 to opt out, as did the other cities. And so that's really what we're looking for this evening.

I have one more question.

Sure. Go ahead.

If say the county went ahead with this and opted in, that's not requiring Folsom to opt in. Yes, it is.

It would be a countywide program and they are the health agency for the entire county. So if MECOs are allowed in Sacramento County, that includes all the incorporated cities.

I just got one question. Have you guys received a letter from the city of Sacramento this time in opposition?

The city of Sacramento did not submit a letter. So they did not opt out. They just remain neutral.

So this all other incorporated cities in Sacramento County have recommended Sacramento County opt out of MECO is not correct. Yes, that's true. Correct. Okay. So the largest city in the county has not opted. They haven't made a recommendation yet. We have had one. Elk Grove is the only council that's heard this. And the start of the presentation was that same sentence. In fact, a matrix that said all other cities have opted out. even though that was based on 2019 guidance. So they quoted one of the council members actually said, well, this is going to be DoorDash going from one place to the next. And so they clearly didn't have an understanding of what was included and whatnot. You guys were not there, unfortunately, at the Elk Grove presentation. So my understanding is that all the other cities, none of the councils have heard it, and staff has made the the recommendation to rely on the 2019 guidance.

Galt actually made a recent decision also.

Galt did too? Okay.

Yes.

Perfect. I hadn't seen that. So I do want to thank staff for having this on the agenda tonight. I want to thank the county for coming out. I asked for us not to rely on the 2019 decision. Just a couple months ago, we passed a resolution supporting entrepreneurship here and committing ourselves to furthering entrepreneurship in the city. So I thought it was important that we have this public discussion. I'm not saying there will not be challenges with this, but I have also looked into MECO and the 17 counties. We do have a significant amount of data that we didn't have back in 2019. So I think it was important that we had that public discussion. If you go back just one slide again, I did send a report over. They did basically, the agency that's been advocating for MECOs across the state, Did a multi level public record request in order to put together the data on the 17 counties. And so that's kind of where this came from. They requested, hey, where are all the macos? And then after that, what kind of complaints had the macos received? And I think the summary is really good, but there's a couple of other things that I wanted to highlight out of that report. One of those is there is a lot more, like eight times the number of complaints of unlicensed food operators than there are complaints against MAKOs. People that get permits tend to follow the rules, they tend to understand the rules, they tend to get inspected. We have unlicensed food operators out there right now in Folsom and in Sacramento County. And MAKO is an opportunity to actually bring these people in and have the ability to be inspected, to be above board, and to be an entrepreneur. And I can tell you that the complaints that we get, we've gotten them in Folsom. Pam looked through the data that we've had. We've had multiple unlicensed food operator complaints in here that our code enforcement deals with already. So I will say my own personal thought is that when you allow the opportunity for a business to have a license you also take away that incentive to operate unlicensed so i think that is something that's important that was in that report because these are all good things but that was another thing that i saw in that report that was important the other thing was is that uh some of these like about a third operated one to three times a week. You see that kind of 90 meals a week or 30 meals a day. That means a MAKO might be in operation up to three days, but a lot of them are in operation one day a week, two days a week, three days a week, up to the third. And then you had those that were a couple days a month. That was another large chunk of them. And then you had the seasonal operators like I can tell you there's a lot of people that sell tamales throughout Folsom at Christmas time. Guess what? They're all doing it illegally. The Mako would allow them to do it legally. And you to be able to buy tamales in your own neighborhood. So to me, a lot of this activity is already going on. We can continue looking the other way, or we can bring these people in under an umbrella of a permitted regulated operation. And I think there are advantages to that. So just kind of wanted to say why I thought the discussion was important today, what some of the other maybe benefits to that are. And that the amount of dine in establishments, the amount of three day a week establishments based on my looking through the data on these other 17 counties. are very few and far between. I want supper clubs in my neighborhood. I want local tamales. I am happy to go down and have barbecue once or twice a month at a local neighbor. That sounds awesome to me. And so that's why I wanted to kind of bring this up, not only for those entrepreneurship activities, but the community building and gathering in my neighborhood.

I want to bring up some concerns that we've had in the past, however, about you're talking about, you know, when and I always like to ask these hard questions, these Miko businesses, you know, do have written they have a permit to operate and they have more, hopefully more enforcement and supervision. But we've we've spoken before at these meetings that we have a lot of local businesses out of homes that do not have permits. So I don't know that that's going to change this paradigm where everybody that operates a kitchen out of their home is actually going to get a permit. And I believe that perhaps the Christmastime production of tamales in some homes might fall under the cottage industry definition rather than a MECO definition. And so I think we need to look at that. And one other issue I forgot to ask about was garbage, because anyone who's producing food in their home is going to be producing more garbage. And I think that would be a concern. And I don't know how, even if people can, I know you can get another garbage can or whatever, but I think that's an additional concern that people may have. But I'm more concerned about making sure that if this goes forward that it's really not something that will create a lot of problems throughout the community because I can envision very few people in the city that want to have one next door to their home.

Can we get some clarification on whether tamales fall under a cottage food permit?

So unfortunately tamales don't fall under cottage food. They would be under MECO because they have what's considered a potentially hazardous food. So there would be meat and other items in there. So cottage food would be just non-perishable items.

Thank you.

Even if it's just on an annual basis for two weeks.

Doesn't matter.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, I think the Venn diagram of people who currently are operating home businesses and the ones who are dying to get a permit from the county don't overlap. Um, and they certainly don't overlap when you take into account that they're. They're operating that business somewhat successfully as things stand right. And avoiding scrutiny from the city, and now you're asking them to pay at least 1200 dollars for a. For inspection and a permit. and whatever it costs to make their food preparation area meet the health code, right? So are you, you know, I just don't see those groups overlapping all that much, and I think that was evidenced in the stat that we heard, that there's 8,000 licensed restaurants in Sacramento County, and there's maybe 1,700 of these MECOs throughout the state currently. The, you know, the number... I guess what I'm saying is that it creates complexity in our home occupation ordinance that we don't need here in Folsom, right? It's not going to, I love your optimism, but I don't think that there's a big overlap between people that don't have a permit currently and are gonna go get one if this program becomes a thing. And I think for county purposes, irrespective of the fact that they believe that they can enforce the health ordinance part of this, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. It's regulating something that doesn't, it's inconsequential to the greater number of businesses that they can focus on, which is the regular licensed restaurants.

Yeah, I'd say the data is there in the 17 counties, and I'd ask you to look at that, is that there are a lot of successful places that, you know, it's not like you're...

I didn't say there are none. I'm saying the number is so small that the complications it would create for us in Folsom in enforcing our home occupation, effectively what we would be saying is that, okay, if you get your license and make a food that's not, you know, Got a hazardous hazardous material in it, right? That those businesses have carte blanche to serve that on their driveway. Whenever they want and a beautician who wants to work out of her garage. has really strict regulations to comply with. So the licensed tamale vendor or safe food vendor versus the home haircut, now all of a sudden, we've got two completely different sets of regulations, and how is that fair? this i'm bringing up some things that have come up in the past and i think some smart people um aside from sarah and i were on the council at the time when we made the recommendation that the county should continue to opt out of this um so i think we should stick with our original assessment yeah i guess i would say that you know it's not carte blanche right it's this we have this dual

uh regulatory environment for restaurants right now right where the county operates the health side of things and we operate the code enforcement side of things so it's not any different from what we currently have yeah but it is expanding that yeah we're changing our responsibilities and we're making a third tier of regulations for people who are operating a food business out of a residence councilmember kino any thoughts

uh i think we ought to continue to opt out or encourage the county to opt out you know generally i'm a free market person just let the market figure this stuff out but i really think when you are living in a residential neighborhood you don't expect and you don't want. I think you're in the minority when you talked about going down to your neighbor's house to have dinner in their restaurant in their home. Most people don't want that. And I'm actually dealing with a similar issue in my district right now where there is a residential care facility which when you know six beds or fewer you are allowed that by right by state law and the residents they don't like it because the amount of traffic from people who work there people who are coming to visit the number of deliveries because now you've got this business in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Most people don't want that. We have mixed use areas in the city where you want to run a pizza parlor and live above it. More power to you. You can do that in certain areas of the city. But I think we ought to continue to encourage the county to opt out.

So I was kind of open to the idea as well until I saw one of the pictures of It looked like a neighborhood barbecue, but them serving food. And I imagined, I think as you did, if one of my neighbors in my neighborhood did this and there were 30 meals, if they served the minute or I guess it was 30 meals a day and then 80 meals a day for maximum. So whatever one it was, if they did 30 meals a day. Um, that is a lot of traffic coming through a neighborhood, a quiet neighborhood, um, outside of the idea that if you're in an apartment and you have people coming up and downstairs and, um, a little tight, tighter space. So, you know, I always try to go what's good for families is, or what's good for families is good for Folsom. And I think this could create a lot of work for our city staff, but also, um, Create some unsafe situations as well. We have a pretty quiet, but busy street in a sense. And if we're adding 30 to 50 more car trips. A day, and if we can't put any more restrictions, like, I like the delivery option if someone could cook out of their home and then deliver it. I don't see that as big of an obstacle, but if we can't add any more parameters. around it then i think i would be um more of the sense of not rec of asking them not to recommend or recommending to not do this as well i will entertain a motion we have other things to discuss tonight i will move that we continue we maintain our opt-out position on this uh miko consideration i'll second

Please call the roll.

Councilmember Kozlowski?

Yes.

Larry? Yes. Rorba? Yes. Aquino? Yes. And Rathel?

No. Please call the next item.

Okay, you have three more items this evening. Item number 19 is resolution number 11697, accepting the notice of completion for the CFD number 18 phase two water improvements project. And authorizing the other things.

And the other things. Thank you, Krista. Mayor Athol, members of the council, Marcus Yasutake, utilities director. I am just updating one number real quick and we'll get the presentation going. This is the water line project that traversed from the treatment plant down to where Sutter Hospital currently is being built, so you probably are familiar with the work that occurred. Tonight we're asking for a couple items. One is to approve basically the acceptance of the notice of completion that we could file with the county to basically say the project is done and over with. And then also there's an appropriation of funds from the Public Works Department to just wrap up the final cost for paving this is just a little map showing where the project occurred and the installation of about 18 500 feet of 24 inch waterline pipe shown in the the red line here there are some trail modifications grading modifications drainage improvements and then the paving on iron point road from east bidwell up to cavit and a lot of thanks to rebecca and her team working with costco to ensure that they were able to maintain service in and around Broadstone Parkway and Cabot Drive. Big picture project partners here, contractor Mozingo Construction Inc. Before I forget, one group I did forget to put on here was Westland Capital Partners, and they did a lot of the work up front for the design of the project. So I did I APOLOGIZE, I FORGOT TO PUT THEM ON THERE, BUT WANTED TO MENTION THAT BEFORE I FORGOT. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION, DEWBERRY INC., AND THIS IS A LIST OF SUBS THEY HAD FOR ARBOR SERVICES, SURVEYING, MATERIALS TESTING, COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH. stormwater pollution prevention and then engineering services during construction. A lot of thanks to our project manager, Nathan Stites, from the utilities department. He was spending maybe a quarter to sometimes a third of his time during the week focusing on this project and the peak of the construction period, coordinating with all the different departments, coordinating with the contractor, coordinating with our own operations team to to ensure this project ran smoothly. And for the most part, I want to say it did. I mean, we did not get a lot of calls. There were some here and there throughout the project, but not anything, in my opinion, of any significance. And a lot of that had to do with Nathan, which was a pretty significant sized project for us to undertake with with a single individual. But he did very well on this project for us, our utilities team. So our treatment and distribution staff I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CITY ENGINEERING PROGRAM. THE CITY ENGINEERING PROGRAM. THE CITY ENGINEERING PROGRAM. FINANCE HELPING US GET THE CFD FINANCE HELPING US GET THE CFD FINANCE HELPING US GET THE CFD SET UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO. SET UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO. SET UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO. PUBLIC WORK, STREET SIGNALS AND PUBLIC WORK, STREET SIGNALS AND PUBLIC WORK, STREET SIGNALS AND ENGINEERING. ENGINEERING. ENGINEERING. NOW THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT THE NOW THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT THE NOW THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT THE CITY ENGINEER AT THE TIME WHEN CITY ENGINEER AT THE TIME just ensuring that the trees that were identified to be protected were protected and any challenges that came up during construction, she was out there to help ensure that no damage was caused to the trees that were existing that we needed to protect our own communications team. So whenever anything had to come out from the city's perspective, they were always helpful in getting that information out. and then parks and recreation so parks and trails so we were disruptive of the golf course the golf discourse sorry that's there at the end of willow creek and oak avenue and then the trail work in the oak trail corridor so just i won't read all through these but these were all the different resolutions that were associated with the project from the construction management team the contractor the inspection team and then the actual total amount I will show here shortly. Just a project timeline. The notice to proceed was issued in November of 24. In the contract, there was a 365 working day schedule. Construction work began on November 21st, 2024. The initial project completion date was actually May of 26. The acceptance of the pipeline was actually March of 26, so effectively two months ahead of schedule, which is always great to be ahead of schedule. And then we did have one pretty good-sized change order that we coordinated with Public Works, and that was for the paving on Iron Point Road between East Bidwell and Cavett Drive. So in terms of project costs, construction, a little bit over 67,140 with all the change orders, which is less than 1% of the total contract amount, which something of this size and an underground utility project going the route it went was very, very good in my opinion. The big project savings was actually in the construction management and inspection. The original contract was a little less than $3 million. We came in about half of that. We're wrapping up some of those project costs. So the number here of 1.445 is projected. There's a little bit of closeout work in terms of getting us all the project files and getting us the as-built plans and the documentation for the entire project. So looking at a pretty good savings there. There are prior project costs that were agreed upon for work that was done prior to the construction project. So this was the design, the environmental clearance, and the pre-design work that was done, which was about $2.19 million. In total, the proceeds were $25,800,000. So that leaves roughly a balance of about $3.61 million in CFD 18 that can be utilized for other projects that this can cover. And just to point out the estimate at the time, the engineer's estimate was about $27.6 million for the project in and of itself. So we were, in my opinion, well under the engineer's estimate. So just some project photos, different portions throughout the pipeline alignment. Just some more pictures with the pipeline going in, doing a little bit of welding for cathodic protection purposes on the far right. Work at the treatment plant. So there was work at the treatment plant site. So this is pipe connections to the existing infrastructure that's at the treatment plant. And then the picture on the right is grading for the future pump station that's going to come along with the Toll Brothers project. Just some more work showing what was happening at the city's water treatment plant The picture in the middle is the work on Iron Point right by the Sutter Hospital And then this is you've probably seen these but this is the completed for the most part work on Iron Point Road not all the striping is done in this picture, but this does show all the paving work and most of the striping being completed and This is the final grading at the city's water treatment plant. This is where a future water pump station will be built as part of the toll project that will be the primary feed for the development south of Highway 50, but it also does have interconnections to the pipelines north of Highway 50. So if we ever had to move water between the two pump stations that will exist when this one's built, we'd be able to do so. So it offers a lot of flexibility and offers actually a good redundancy if We did have any emergencies or had to pull some pumps at the existing pump station. So with that, we do recommend approval of resolution number 11697. And I will take any questions.

Questions for our staff this evening? All right, we don't have any questions. Thank you, Marcus. All right, thank you. And I'll entertain a motion.

No request to speak, I assume.

No request to speak.

Okay, I will move adoption of resolution number 11697. Second.

Please call the roll.

Council Member Leary. Yes. Rorbaugh. Yes. Aquino. Yes. Rathel. Yes. And Kozlowski stepped away.

Please call the next item.

Okay, item 20 is ordinance number 1376. This is an ordinance adding chapter 10.44 to the Folsom Municipal Code regarding e-bikes and e-conveyances. This will be introduction and first reading of the ordinance.

All right, good evening, Mayor and Council. I am Adam Green, your Police Chief, and I'm here to present tonight on the proposed Folsom Municipal Code 10.44. Will this come up automatically?

No, I'll send it.

As we've discussed previously here, over the past five years, sales of electric advances have increased dramatically nationwide. These include e-bikes, e-scooters, e-motorcycles, and other single-rider electric devices, with 2 million units sold reportedly in 2025. The police Department has experienced a significant rise in calls for service involving e conveyance riders, particularly juveniles on roadways in city parks and on bike paths. These calls often involve dangerous threatening and destructive behavior in response to the increase in calls for service related to these vehicles. As well as increases in collisions involving them, traffic and school resource officers implemented education campaigns beginning in 2023, and those continue today. Folsom Police Department has worked closely with the school district to educate children and parents about e-conveyance laws, and we've utilized social media and traditional media outreach. Additionally, our officers have issued warnings, tickets, and traffic citations for violations. Patrol officers have engaged in proactive enforcement campaigns, I'm sorry, a proactive enforcement campaign this year and have issued citations to OD motorcycles and made arrests for crimes perpetrated by persons on these vehicles. Despite these efforts, complaints and reports of unsafe riding and damage to city parks continue, and many cities across the state are implementing local ordinances to address improper riding behaviors and the limited use of e-bikes in city parks. This next slide you've seen before, and I'll go very quickly here. I know we're getting late in the night. This is just some refresher for the types of e-vehicles that you see. A class one electric bicycle is a pedal assist bicycle with a max speed of 20 miles an hour. There are no aid restrictions on these bikes. Class IIe bike is a bike that has a pedal assist, but also can be controlled by a throttle without pedaling. They have a max speed of 20 miles an hour. And there is also no aid restriction on these bikes. A class three e-bike, that is a pedal assist bike that you must be 16 years old or older to ride and they have a max speed of 28 miles an hour. An e-scooter requires the rider to be 16 years or older and have a permit or a license. You may not have a passenger and they have a max speed of 15 miles an hour. A moped is something you don't see as often, but it's like a small motorcycle essentially with a small gas powered motor. And then lastly, electric motorcycles. These are essentially a motorcycle that is powered by an electric motor. One of the most significant differentiating characteristics between these and our electric bicycles is that these do not have pedals. In some cases, pedals are added afterwards and after market product, but they don't actually change the classification of the vehicle. In the eyes of law, this is a motorcycle that is powered by an e-moto and is required to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and they were required to have all the same lighting and safety equipment as a traditional motorcycle, and the rider must have a motorcycle license to operate them. These vehicles are not permitted on the roadway or any public spaces, and if the above conditions are conditions I just mentioned are not met. Next, I'd like to talk a little bit about what we've done to educate our community. Since about 2023, the police department has worked closely with the Folsom Cordova School District to educate children and parents. Both last year and this year, we have had our traffic enforcement team participate in education campaigns during drop-off hours at our middle school campuses. And this year, prior to the new school year starting, we've collaborated with the district to share some of the educational materials with students and parents through the annual handbook provided to all students at the beginning of the year. I'd like to add that the school district has been an outstanding partner and they truly are collaborators in finding solutions to keep our children safe. Community education. Additionally, the police department and our city communications team have worked together to share information through social media and with our local news outlets. Like many of our surrounding communities, the police department has also created a reckless driving admonishment form that notifies parents of children who've been contacted while riding dangerously of the dangers associated with reckless driving. It also advises them that allowing their minor future access to use of any conveyance could subject them to criminal penalties and other legal consequences. So why is this necessary for our community? Use of electric bicycles is increasing, the safety of riders, the proposed municipal code is designed to address dangerous riding behaviors and keep riders safe. Community safety, this municipal code is also designed to keep the public, pedestrians, and drivers safe. Protection of our city amenities, some riding behaviors have resulted in significant damage to city property, parks, open spaces, and sports courts, and have all been damaged through improper use of vehicles, and I'll share some images with this in a later slide. Increasing calls for service and collisions, as you'll see also in a future slide, the police department is experiencing an increasing number of calls for service resulting from improper use and dangerous riding behaviors, as well as increased collisions involving e-bikes. And lastly, increased instances of serious injury resulting from accidents involving e-bikes. As you remember in my prior presentation I discussed, the growing field of study around injuries resulting from e-bike collisions and the data shows that children are disproportionately impacted and hospitals are seeing an increase in the number of serious injuries to riders of these vehicles. And lastly, the California Vehicle Code does not address certain riding behaviors. This municipal code is narrowly tailored to address specific riding behaviors that are dangerous and not covered within the vehicle code. This chart shows you some of our e-bike collision data for the last three years within our city. As you can see in 2025, collisions with these vehicles doubled from prior two years, and we're on track to see another increase this year. 72% of those collisions involved juveniles, and 70% of the collisions, the e-bike rider was the one at fault. This is some data on our calls for service involving electric bicycles. As you can see, calls for service have been increasing significantly since 2023, and we're on track to have another increase this year. The top five call types for involving e-bikes are reckless driver, location checks, disturbances, traffic stops, and subject stops. Reckless drivers and disturbances are calls that would generally be INITIATED EXTERNALLY, AND A LOCATION CHECK IS A CALL THAT COULD BE GENERATED BOTH BY A COMMUNITY MEMBER OR ONE OF OUR OFFICERS, AND A STOP, A TRAFFIC STOP OR SUBJECT STOP IS A CALL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY AN OFFICER. NEXT, I'D LIKE TO SHARE SOME OF THE DATA, DAMAGE TO CITY PROPERTY THAT'S RESULTED FROM THE USE OF UBIKES IN OUR COMMUNITY. HERE YOU SEE A COUPLE DIFFERENT PHOTOS FROM LAWNS IN OUR CITY PARKS AND SOME OF THE FIELDS IN OUR CITY. Here are some additional photos with damage to the turf fields and basketball courts. Over the course of the last six months, the City Parks and Recreation Division has spent more than $37,000 repairing damage to parks, fields, turf, and sports course that was a result of improper use of e-bikes. These costs include staff time as well as materials needed for the repairs, but do not include the use of equipment such as tractors, or the addition of any items to parks or courts to prevent future damage. So, the municipal code that we are proposing tonight. This narrowly tailored ordinance that addresses improper dangerous riding behaviors and prohibits riding within city parks unless signage at a specific park states that it is specifically authorized. In drafting this ordinance, we consulted with the city parks and recreation, trail planning, Folsom Cordova Unified School District, California State Parks, businesses, local nonprofits, and a cycling organization. The collaboration helped ensure that the ordinance was well-crafted and allows for safe, appropriate e-conveyance use by riders of all age. This ordinance generally restricts riding in parks and playgrounds while allowing flexibility to designate e-conveyance paths or use areas. A violation of this proposed municipal code will be designated as an administrative violation. A violation is punishable by a fine of $50 for the first violation, $100 for a second violation, of the same provision within one year and $500 for each additional violation of the same provision within that same year. A minor's parents or legal guardian are not subject to criminal liability under this section. The parent and or legal guardian of a minor is charged with a violation of this chapter is a responsible person for the purposes of any administrative sanction and the parents or legal guardian shall have the right to a hearing. These violations will be enforced as city administrative citations and will be processed through the city clerk's office. The law also permits these to be administered as traffic violations processed through the Carroll-Miller Traffic Court, but our intent is particularly with juveniles to process these simply as administrative penalties. So section A of the code outlines the rights and protections afforded to people using electric e-bikes. And section B outlines the riding behaviors that are prohibited on public spaces, and these include the following. One intentionally swerving or riding around stopped or slow traffic in a manner that creates a hazard or in reasonably obstructs the sight lines or visibility of other roadway users. To operating an electric or eat I'm sorry an electric bicycle or he convinced in a manner that it was not designed for including carrying passengers. on an e-bicycle or e-conveyance not intended to carry passengers or carrying more passengers than the number of e-bicycle or e-conveyance is designated or equipped to carry. Three, not obeying posted signs, signals, or markings. Four, intentionally lifting one or more wheels of the e-bike or e-conveyance into the air while riding on a public right-of-way. Five, attempting to perform any acrobatic trick or stunt in any public right of way. Six, operating on any public right of way against the direction of traffic except when passing in a safe manner. 7. Operating at a speed greater than is provided than the vehicle code if no such speed limit is provided in the vehicle code, 15 miles an hour on any public right-of-way, or at any speed greater than is reasonable or prudent under the conditions then existing, considering the safety of persons, animals, and property. Eight, failing to yield to pedestrians on sidewalks, walkways, trails, or paths. Nine, operating an electric vehicle, or I'm sorry, electric bicycle or e-conveyance while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electric wireless communications device unless the wireless telephone or electric wireless communication device is specifically designated and configured to allow voice operation and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while riding. 10 operating an electric bicycle or he conveyance and upon any playground park or school ground and less signage at that site states that the operator of that he bicycle or he conveyance is specifically authorized as you can see here there's an edit and we recommend removing the language from section 10 that is specific to school grounds. 11, operating an e-bicycle or e-conveyance in any location or during any hours posted as prohibited such operation. I'm sorry, let me re-say that. Operating an e-bicycle or e-conveyance in any location or during any hours posted as prohibiting such operation under this chapter. And 12, when posted, no person shall operate an e-bicycle or e-conveyance at any city special event. The last portions of this section are specific to parking and tampering. No person shall leave any bicycle or e-conveyance lying on its side or any sidewalk nor park or e-bicycle or e-conveyance upon a public right-of-way or against a building or such curb so that there are no adequate path for pedestrian traffic where no traffic signs or signals are posted. No person shall park any bicycle or e-conveyance on a public roadway in an area designated by those signs. And 10-4-4-0-6-0 prohibits the tampering or modification of electric vehicles to prevent the motor from being disengaged when the brakes are applied or to modify the speed capability of the bike allowing it to travel faster than speeds. So with that, staff recommends City Council introduce the ordinance as amended. But I know there's some questions about this and maybe some discussion for potential modifications.

Questions for staff? Council Member Aquino?

First of all, Chief Green, thank you very much for bringing this forward. Clearly, something has to be done. We do have a lot of challenges. And there's a lot of dads in the audience that I regularly see at Prospector Park. And thank you for sticking around to talk about this subject. I do have a few questions. Number one, when you talk about no e-bikes, e-conveyances in the park, does that extend to the parking lot of the park?

So, yes, our intention is that it would. A number of the complaints we get about e-bicycles and some of the dangerous riding, particularly from children, is within the parking lots of both the parks and businesses in our city. I think parking lots are particularly dangerous for these because they're also very hard for people in parking lots to see. Parking lots are very crowded, full of kids. full of cars. And so it's just a dangerous place for kids to be operating or really anyone to be operating an e-bike anyway.

OK. I I'm curious about our ability to enforce these things. I've said many times up here that my philosophy toward governing is the same as it is for parenting. And that is have as few rules as possible, but enforce them absolutely. We know right now that, first of all, all these kids I believe are riding class two bicycles because I never see anyone pedal anymore. No one pedals. um so you know when when when somebody calls in to non-emergency or even 911 and you know you're responding as i had to do recently when i was at prospector park and was dealing with some kids um we know they just take off right and so what is the likelihood that we're going to be able to i mean somebody doing a wheelie what is the likelihood that we're going to be able to enforce that

So you are not wrong in that many of these kids run from us. And I think I've talked about it here before. I've given very clear direction to my officers that we're not going to chase children on electric bicycles for minor traffic violations. It's too great of a risk to the people on the bicycles. It's a great risk to our community and to our officers as well. Now that being said, we do have a number of people, we are able, our officers write citations. They have towed some new motorcycles. In some of those cases, it's been situations where someone has stopped for us. In others, it's been where someone has run from us and we've been able to identify them through an investigation and go back and follow up with that based on that identification. i don't think that because we have a municipal code kids are going to stop running from us or adults for that matter because we've had a few of those also that being said i we have been incredibly successful in cases where children or juveniles have run from us identifying them after the fact and issuing them a citation or taking whatever proper legal action uh afterwards

okay that's helpful thank you question also that may be more for the city manager than for you um i do believe very strongly that when we tell kids or whoever not just kids um you can't do this or you can't do this here that we need to give them an option where you can do this where you can go ride your bike and do your wheelies and do all your tricks and it's great that we have the bike park back open but you can't ride any bike at the bike park understandably So is there an area of the city, I mean, it's been brought up before, could we take vacant land that the city owns, have Public Works go out and drag a track, put some jumps in it, whatever, so that kids, hey, you can't do that here at the park, you can't do it in the parking lot at the park, but you can go right over here to this vacant lot and do it to your heart's content. Is there a possibility that we could do something like that?

yes okay okay that's all my questions for now thank you councilmember leary any questions i appreciate you going through all of this again and it's really is a complicated issue i had a few emails over the weekend after people took a look at this and one of them for was from seniors who were using park trails as cut throughs And they're not necessarily trails. Most of these are our sidewalks that actually go through parks. And there was a question about. You know, allowing seniors to ride through the park versus juveniles, which I think would be hard to actually sort out. Yeah. Especially from behind, but. And, you know, in a way, I think it'd be difficult to enforce that because there would be inconsistency in enforcement and identification. The other side of that is people on electric bikes have the option of taking a little bit longer route instead of a cut through. But I wanted to bring that up because it was a concern brought up by more than a couple of different people. And I don't know if you've had that question before.

Yeah, so I think it's a valid concern. We're trying to find a solution to address the impacts to the park, the potential dangers. We've had complaints as well from people using the parks about e-bikes riding on the pathways, also those same pathways within the parks, and the concern for, because you've got children kind of running around uncontrolled, those same concerns. And so it's a difficult balance, and I don't know what the correct answer is. we could change this code to say something. So we could leave the code the way it is. If we wanted to open up pathways within the parks, we could leave the code the way it is and create signage for the parks that our do function is cut throughs to get from one point on a bike trail to a second. we could post those particular parks to allow for bike riding on all or particular portions of the walkways through the parks. The other alternative would be to take the parks portion out or really redesign it the opposite way and say that you are able to ride in parks unless it's designated as a specific park that you cannot ride in. I think that probably the best workaround if we were going to change this in some way would be allowing the e-bike solely on the walkways because a lot of the damage is occurring in on the sports courts, on the turf fields, in the grass. That being said, I think it does come with some hazards, right? Like, we do have, I mean, these are areas where kids are running around. The e-bikes are, you know, they are capable of going very fast. They are also very heavy. So if someone is involved in a collision with a pedestrian with one of them, there may be a greater potential for injury. So I think it's a balancing act depending on how we want to approach that. To your point, the alternative is to just lock it off and say that you cannot, meaning that someone would have to get off their bike and walk it through the park or take a longer route around to get to the trail connection.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, that was kind of a tough question to ask, and I can't see how we could enforce something that's inconsistent. That would not be a great example. Oh, yes, if you're over.

I agree with that. I think right through the park, we'd find out where some of the weird space if we started, like, trying to pick and choose based.

Yes. Okay. I just wanted to address that since yeah, I was asked and then I'm wondering if. There used to be couldn't tell you when all of this stuff, but there used to be a requirement to actually license any bicycle. You know when you bought it and I don't think that that's been in existence for a very long time, but I'm wondering if there's any effort going on to. Like statewide to enforce licensing for. Motorized vehicles, I think I've heard of that.

Spoken about, but I don't think there's anything in the works right now to require licensing.

And I believe right now the vehicle code specifically exempts e-bikes from the requirement to be registered. Yeah.

So that would, I mean, that would be something that would take a change in state law. Might make enforcement easier if you were able to identify the problem.

Yeah, potentially. Yeah.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. You're welcome. Yeah.

I just have one for you. I think we have more to discuss. I think there are some parks that are out there that are not cut throughs that are really built into the trail system. Like BT Collins comes to mind. We've got a trail on one side of trail on the other. Uh, really that the trail was built through the right and Davies park Catlin park. We have a number of these where. There are more passive spaces where the trails really do just go directly through the park. So, I think that's something to discuss definitely today. But I think my other question is, is really around this 50 dollars, 100 dollars, 500 dollars. I would imagine taking a call, responding to an incident, doing an investigation, somebody that runs from us, going and delivering the administration, and then when they appeal, dealing with it here at City Hall. Any estimate of what that would cost the city? I'm guessing $50 pays for about maybe 15 minutes of an officer's time.

It would be more than $50, yes.

So where did the 50, well, it's not cost recovery, like $50 seems like a very low number to me.

So can you answer where those numbers come from?

Sure, um, in our general, um. Administrative enforcement section in chapter 1.9 of the municipal code, it applies across the board for all of the municipal code violations. The determination was made that this particular ordinance would be a level a violation and the range is pretty broad. I think it's maybe 20 dollars to. $500 and typically the way most municipal code violations work is the code enforcement officer is supposed to make a determination on each and every citation of where that would fall. For instance, $20 versus 500. They're supposed to do a write up of the basis for that determination for something like this. We didn't think it would be a great use of officer time to have them making a determination on the field in the field. And also then we get challenged on a case by case basis. Why is 1 more expensive than the next? So the determination was made just to have set thresholds for 1st, 2nd, and subsequent violations. And the numbers, I think we're. I wasn't directly involved in choosing the numbers, but I think they were targeted to maybe the seriousness of the violations, but those are up to council discretion.

So we can set those tonight with whatever values we feel is appropriate. Okay. Vice Mayor?

Can an incident receive both an administration fine and an infraction fine?

No, we have to choose a path. Okay. Yep.

And then mine goes back to the, like the trails going through parks. And I think BT Collins was a great example. And I think we can talk about this in the discussion, but can we put something in there? Like we don't want to outline e-scooters or e-scooters, e-bikes in those situations, but can we make it specific as in,

we can't you cannot operate recklessly through a park you know something like that so then it gives the officer discretion of what reckless is obviously we could i think we could actually use the way the language is written um going back to i think there was a general um like reckless or uh I forget which section it is. But we can write it that way. I also think that we could, through signage, designate specific paths in parks, whether it's a cut through or it's just an open space that we're riding through, that you could designate as available to e-bikes so that there is a clear pathway for them. But I think what you're talking about would be covered by the language that's already in here, because it would be a public space where someone's riding recklessly.

You know, I think the intent is obviously not to, you know, have to penalize responsible writers of all ages. And we see kids and all the way up to seniors who are very responsible. Most of them are. I think we're not in the discussion phase, but I'll continue with what you said. I think if we make one pathway, here's where eBay bikers can ride. I have a feeling that, you know, them going 25 miles an hour is not reckless in their mind, but it might be reckless. I just feel like we're kind of. maybe piecemealing i'd probably rather have a general thing that gives an officer discretion and resources because the majority of people in the park are not writing recklessly so you know to make it simply but um simpler but yes but we can absolutely manipulate this in any way to you know address this in a different way that allows for um traverse through the parks

And council member robot, I would just add to the next item deals specifically with E bikes on trails. And so the 2 do kind of dovetail together. I'm over that.

And I think that brings me to a question. I didn't ask. We had an ordinance on the books already dealing with E bikes and this is a proposed. New chapter of the municipal code. Why would we not just update the chapter that we have? It feels weird to have like. The trails and one part of the municipal code and then like the class two bikeways and the parks and another set of municipal codes. Is there an opportunity to combine these into one municipal code?

So they don't have to be separate or together. Like I think you functionally, we could manage them either way. I don't think it'll make it. It will make a difference in how they read or how we enforce them.

Because we have like the same definition. It looks like the same definitions in both. Yeah. And then if we update one in the future, maybe they start to inadvertently diverge, right? Yeah. Council Member Kozlowski.

I think. I think my councilmates have hit all the high points.

I do have 1 more that I thought about the commercial properties. I know parking lots in our parks are an issue, but I've also seen, like, in some of our bigger retail centers with big parking lights. Palladio is something we've had struggle with. Are we going to be able to enforce these regulations on private property?

Yeah, so not different than, like, a trespass if a, if a private business wanted to give us the authority to enforce this section on their code, we could have that agreement.

Excellent with signage with such got us.

Thank you city attorney. We've got a few public comments this evening. We'll go ahead in here and we may have some more questions for you. All right.

Okay, our first speaker this evening will be Jim Kirstein, and Jim will be followed by Khazmoud Kermi.

Good evening, Council and staff. My name is James Kirstein. I am a very avid cyclist, and I have been very avid, as you may know. Excuse me, I've been sitting there too long without talking. I'm a very avid cyclist and I have ridden for many years and have been very active with the city of Folsom's trails. And so this is something that really would like to see taken care of because these young kids riding e-bikes are a danger to themselves and to the general public. One of the things I participate in is the city's Parks and Rec Department's Walk and Talk program, where we take seniors out and walk along the trails. And it is very scary when school is not in, those kids running up and down the bike trails, doing wheelies, dodging in and out and going, 30 miles an hour down the bike trails and also even down the streets. In fact, this evening on the way in, when I was on Wales coming up here to visit four-way stop sign on wheels, I had a lady on a ski scooter just blast right on through the four-way stop. And if I had not seen her coming, we may be having a different discussion because she didn't stop, didn't care. She knew that I was gonna see her and stop. Well, that's just because I saw her. What I would very much like to see is instead of a monetary fine for these reckless e-bike riders and e-scooter riders, is that instead of doing a dollar value fine, I would very much like to see impounding their bike fines. first offense for two weeks, for second offense, two months, for third offense, bye-bye bicycle. And I think that would be much more effective. And most of these kids that are dealing with problems are 10, 12 year olds, maybe 16. It would be nice if we could, and I realize that legally would be problematic, I would like very much to require anybody riding an e-bike or an e-scooter to have a driver's license. That's, I know, very problematic. We probably can't do that. That's something the state would have to do. But that's where I am on this subject. a very avid bicycle rider, and I will admit that I don't ride on our bike trails very much because I have a hard time keeping my stupid bicycle under 20 miles an hour.

Jim, can you wrap it up?

Yeah, and just to let you know, for bike riding, I have ridden all the way from Vancouver, British Columbia to Quebec, Canada, and that was a lot of fun. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Jim.

Okay, our next speaker will be Kamed Kormie, and I apologize if I didn't pronounce that correctly. Okay, who will be followed by Fred Michael.

Good evening, Mayor and Councilperson and Sarah, thank you. I really appreciate Ms. Aquino, she always shows up for us at the park, and she's a saving grace, and she stood toe-to-toe with us against these e-bike riders. I myself work 12-hour shift, and you can see I'm still in my scrubs, and I go home with my toddler, and we go to park. And when I go there, when I was there last time, they almost hit my daughter, who's two-year-old. Okay? So when we call the cops, they take about, I mean, it's not their fault. I really appreciate what they do. They take about 30 minutes, which I'm not, I'm not saying it's wrong. They're busy. They have other things to tend to. And by that time, these e-bike riders abuse us verbally, call us names, racial slurs, and they take off. and we talk to the cops and they say our hands are tied, we cannot do anything. So something has to happen before something really goes wrong here. The reason why I'm saying that is, you witnessed that, how they treat us. It's like we're not citizens of this city or country. The second thing is, They have put up some cameras. Whenever we call cops, they said we don't have any recordings of those. So I spoke with a couple of cops and they have recommended that there should be a cruiser here between five to nine, especially at the parking lot where Prospector Park is. a drone help or something, and I agree with Jim, there should be impounding. It's not something which could be swept under the rug. This will have serious consequences. If my daughter would have gotten hit, she would either have a rib fracture or concussion or maybe pneumothorax. So I don't know as a dad how much I can take and how much we can prolong this. So impounding, if a cruiser needs to be there, something needs to happen. Because they're not shy of having any physical confrontation either. And there's no parental accountability. People don't know where their kids are at 9 p.m. and what they're doing. So impounding, something has to happen. I know police is trying their best, but I spoke to the officers, they said we don't have resources, what we need. So I don't know how to solve that. If you guys can please do something about it, it would be appreciated. It's just not me, there's another four people with me. We also started a petition, we already have close to 500 signatures. So just to let you guys know, we're getting abused.

Thank you, Mr. Covey.

Yes.

I have a question for you. Yes. Have you, and this is no judgment if you have or not, I'm just curious with your personal experience. Sure. Have you taken videos?

We try to take videos, but there's only so much I can do. By the time I'm there, but we're making a... And whosoever need it will be more than willing to submit it to whosoever wants it.

So when you have taken a video or taken a picture or something, have you turned that into the police department?

We show it to them when they come. Okay. So another thing is when we're taking videos, they take off. Right. Like, it's a 30 miles per hour. It's a vehicle we're talking about. We're not talking about something where I could pedal and I could still be caught. It's so fast. And I don't... They even mock the cops in front of us. they would press the pedestal and block the traffic, and they literally would do wheelies around the cruiser. So it's something we're gonna have to all figure it out. I'm not against anybody or anything. We're all fellow citizens. We have to be respectful towards each other.

I'm sorry that's happened to you, but thank you for answering the question.

Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker will be Fred Michael, who will be followed by Paul Kerfelt.

hi my name is fred michael i live in the natoma station subdivision and i'm one of the individuals councilwoman leary referred to that emailed her i do ride my my e-bike through the park in order to run my errands to local businesses i do understand there is a serious problem with the youth in our in our CITY AND THEIR E-BIKES. I SEE IT ALMOST EVERY DAY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH KIDS SPEEDING DOWN THE ROAD OR DOING WHEELIES OR WHATEVER. BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO WHEN I SAW THESE ORDINANCES 1376 AND 77 MY KNEE JERK REACTION WAS TO BE AGAINST THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY. BUT AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT AND READING THROUGH IT. I THINK I COULD BE SATISFIED WITH A COUPLE SMALL MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORDINANCE, PARTICULARLY 1376 THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO CONTINUE TO RIDE MY E-BIKE THROUGH THE PARK ON THE PAVED PATHWAYS AND EVEN MAYBE POST SPEED LIMITS TO KEEP IT TO FIVE MILES AN HOUR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I think that would be a good compromise to those of us who do go through the parks and access the parks. I think if we can't go through the parks or park in the parking lot by parks, that kind of takes away the access to the parks from us. So beyond that, the other change that I'd like to see to the ordinances, both 1376 and 1377, is when they become effective. Both ordinances discuss signage, but there's no mention in the effective dates for these ordinances. It says 30 days after they've been passed, but there's no mention of having signage posted at the time that they go in effect. So we'd be starting to enforce rules that we don't have signage for. So I'd like to have that wording changed to be 30 days and when the signage is posted. And if those changes could be made, I think I could get behind these ordinances. Thank you.

I have a question. Sure. And I'm wondering why you're going through the park when it's like a couple of blocks to go around. I walk that whole area all of the time.

Honestly, it's not much farther to go around. A couple of reasons. Firstly, it's much more Scenic to go through the park than it is to take the roads the other thing is In order to take the roads to where most of my errands are I'd have to go by Natoma Station Elementary and when schools in session parents are picking up the kids and not paying attention to cyclists and e-bike riders and I'd just rather not deal with the traffic violations they're doing and injecting myself among that

And so what would you think about walking your bike through the park rather than riding through? I mean, it's a little difficult to make different rules for different people.

I might as well walk the whole way.

And it's actually a sidewalk-type paved area.

It's not designated as a pedestrian pathway. It's just a paved path. Ordinance 1377 mentions allowing e-bikes on the paved pathways. And that's my thought on the parks is allow the e-bikes on the paved pathways, not on the grass, not on the sports courts, not anywhere else, but on the paved pathways.

I guess that kind of brings up some of these are paved, you know, they're asphalt pavement and sort of intended to make connections and the other parks and the parks Pathways all the way through Sheldon Park are cement pathways and they go through the middle of sports areas where kids are playing on both sides of that walkway.

And I ride very slowly through there. I mean, that's where speed limit signs could be posted.

Okay, well, thanks. I'm just curious.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, our last speaker on this item is Paul Kerfelt.

You guys are keeping some late hours tonight.

One question on what the police chief brought up. E-bikes at public events aren't going to be allowed. If I read that correctly when it came up, that would, I don't agree with that for one right there. Because I ride my bike all around town. I go down to Sutter Street when there's concerts and that kind of stuff. So I would be opposed to that. And what about regular bikes? Is this only for e-bikes or is this for any form of bicycle? Because regular bicycles can go faster than the speed limit. They can do damage to grass in part, especially if the grass is wet. So are we just singling out e-bikes or this is for all cyclists? That would be a question of mine. On the tickets, what cut does the county take from the city? You write a $100 ticket, are we getting $10? Are we getting the whole $100? You know, what is the cut? Like on a traffic enforcement ticket, if he writes a $100 ticket, by the time the state and county takes their cut, what's the city getting? $10, $15 for, do you follow what I'm saying on that? That would be a question of mine. And at what point do, we start holding parents responsible, because you start hitting those parents in the pocket, believe me, their kids' behavior will change. They would in my house, anyways. And I'm not sure what the next number 21's gonna be, so I'll hang around for that one. And just one last thing on the food restaurant. I like your comment. 30 cars in a neighborhood is an awful lot. You know where I live, and there's a lot more than 30 cars, and they don't live there. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Kerfield. All right. That's the end of our public comment.

Yes.

I'm going to invite the police chief back up. I think we had a few questions that came up that would be helpful to be answered. One about driver's license, impound, public events, and then regular bikes. That's my list there. Sorry. Driver's license.

Driver's license. Yep. We cannot. That is not something we have any control over. Impound. We actually ran that idea by a council that looked at this ordinance and helped us develop it. And they told us we didn't have the lawful right to take people's bicycles in this circumstance.

Legal counsel.

Yes, legal counsel, sorry.

Public events.

So public events was, we would allow public events. So if someone were having a city permitted public event and they wanted to prevent e-bikes from riding in the area that they are permitted to use, with a if they were to post the area they could prevent e-bikes from riding in that area to keep their patrons safe it wouldn't prevent someone from riding their bike to a community event and it would only be in situations where the person getting the permit says hey we don't want e-bikes in here because we're not a lot of pedestrians or children things of that nature so through the farmers market for instance yeah if they wanted to post it they could uh and prevent people from riding their bikes through you know up the center of the farmers market

I feel like that's already a thing. I can't ride my bike through the farmer's market right now, can I?

Yeah, you take your life in your hands. It's so crowded.

It'd be pretty hard.

The other question I remember was about the fees that come back to the city. Through an administrative process, this is an entirely city process. It doesn't involve the state or the county. So all the funds, when collected, come back to the city.

One other, would this ordinance apply to regular bikes? It would not.

then the effective date and the signage like how would that work so the way that it is written uh the signage that would be required for a park as it's written would only be required if the park was permitting the use of e-bikes and so this when this ordinance goes into effect uh if it were to go in effect as written This would be a ban that would not require signage. The ban would be that electric bikes are not permitted in all parks unless posted as allowed.

But we could post some signs. We absolutely could.

It would not prevent us from posting signs. And it would probably be wise. But as it's written, it doesn't require that.

Because how important that we do think that we are, a lot of people are not watching that are riding any bikes.

Yeah, maybe not at 1019. We're two hours past my bedtime, so...

Did I miss anything?

I have some questions, but I think you covered them. Floor is yours. Thank you. So with regard to the driving through the park, the the general gist of all of these ordinances is to try and curtail dangerous behavior and nuisance behavior okay if we were to and i think this may be for the city attorney if if we are inconsistent in citing people for riding through the park who are not being a nuisance and not being dangerous, does that give any license to those who are being a nuisance or are being dangerous and who are cited to contest their city-incurred fines?

Well, you don't have to have a reason to appeal. So they could appeal for any reason or no reason at all.

But the appeal would be to us?

Correct.

Not to the California Supreme Court?

Correct. And generally, the officers have discretion to determine when to issue citations. And the concerns would come if they were making decisions based on protected characteristics. But if they were just making it based on how busy they were or whether they could catch the person or things of that nature, then there would not be a concern.

Right. So I'm, I'm a dangerous nuisance 14 year old. I'm tooling through the park in a way that is annoying to everybody and too fast. And this nice gentleman comes across as I'm being cited by the officer who has stopped me and they go, well, what about him? You're going to go, what about him? I mean, is that a reasonable expectation that somebody should have?

It doesn't matter. I suspect that our traffic officers get that retort every single time they issue a traffic ticket. And typically, I believe the response is something like, I caught you. And so you violated it. It doesn't matter if someone else did or didn't.

i think i think i guess the point i'm getting to is wordsmithing who can ride through the park and how they can ride through the park probably is not necessary at this stage because it's a dragnet for a particular type of dangerous behavior that's trying to be uh captured um so that's the one thing and then um i don't know how to put this one exactly actually i'll i'll see the floor i think that that covered my main concern thank you

You know, I think in general, what we're trying to do is not get e-bikers off our streets and trails, but get reckless behavior off our streets and trails, right? And giving our officers any kind of tools that we can, that if they are there, able to catch them, that they have the resources and tools to do so. You know, one of the gentlemen that spoke, you know, I don't want to, you know, get too complicated where we have one rule here and one rule there. What I did like, though, is instead of maybe, and I think a lot of our questions have been around trails through parks, and I think asking someone, especially if they're Upper an age to get off their part bike to walk through the park is not real convenient and most people won't do it. But why don't I mean, I would be kind of. In favor of setting a speed limit through a park, so reducing, I think it's 15 miles an hour on a trail anyways, which most people are going over. Um, as they do on the streets with their cars anyways, but, um, you know, maybe reducing that to 5 or 10 miles per hour. And so we're not having to define reckless. We're not. You know, having to do things like that, but, um, we can. An officer can have discretion that it looks like they're going over in 5 miles miles an hour for sure. Kind of thing. So.

So I think we could limit the speed. I also think we could designate the areas so that people are only on concrete paths. The challenge is determining if someone's going 5 miles an hour or 10 miles an hour. Most our officers are not trained to determine whether by eyesight if someone's going 5 miles an hour or 10 miles an hour. And also, not all of our officers have the LIDAR devices necessary to determine someone's speed. So speed, particularly at really low speeds, meaning anywhere between 5 and 15 miles an hour, can be somewhat complicated for officers to enforce.

What do you think a solution is through our trail? I don't want to require e-bikers to get off if they're going through a park, especially like BT Collins, which is pretty much all trail. So, I mean, what are your suggestions?

So I think that eliminating them from parks is probably the easiest because it's the cleanest and clearest for everybody. But I recognize that that creates a challenge for like we're punishing people who are exercising really good behavior. as a result of the poor behavior of others. So I think that there is no reason we can't post to speed, even if it's very difficult to enforce. I think another thing is that we could post or create through those particular parks where we think this is necessary. designated e-bike pathways and put a speed limit to those have those signed or even discussed earlier with the mayor the possibility of like what if we colored those those pathways like there's a green pathway for a park that designated free bikes and then to some of those open space pathways certainly we can just you know we can put signs on those to designate them as e-bike pathways. But at least that gives us, you know, we can pick a route through a park that we think is maybe the safest for this type of travel, knowing that, you know, we got all these other things going on and people in the parks. It's difficult. This is a difficult the bikes are truly are a uniquely difficult problem as evidenced by the fact that just about every jurisdiction is having the same conversations we're having and struggling to come up with really good solutions. But I think this is maybe one of the next steps for our community. And I think we can work together to figure out maybe a way to make this a little more clean for those people who are using and exercising good judgment and safety.

so whatever we do i think that i would like the city to move forward with signage because i think that's important and then they can't come back to us and say i didn't know um and it doesn't have to be littered all over but i do think that's important and i want to go back to the impounding because i wrote that down as a second infraction but is it i mean you said that we can't do it at all or what if they have a third infraction

So it's our understanding, and we could go back to the attorney and maybe Sarah can weigh in on this, but that we don't have the authority to do that.

Yeah. So this is a challenging area under the Fourth Amendment. And typically the way it works is the state has to authorize local jurisdictions to give us specific authority for when we can impound vehicles or things that go beyond our own borders. And so the state has specifically authorized us under certain circumstances to, for instance, impound cars for violations that occur on roadways. And there are some limited scenarios where I believe we can impound like certain of the class three or the motorcycles if they're doing certain behaviors or operating without a license.

Yeah.

But otherwise, this is an area where state law is silent. And because of the big risk for a Fourth Amendment violation, we made the determination that the safest course of action was to move it forward without the option for that penalty. But if the council is interested, we can certainly go back and take a deeper dive into the case law and see what what might be out there.

It would be interesting to consider the situation where you have somebody flee from the police. Because that's a separate felony or misdemeanor, right? Independent of what we've been talking about here today. Regardless of why you're doing it, fleeing from the police is a crime all unto itself. Yes. It would be interesting to ask the question about impounding in that situation.

So there may be a different space there because potentially it's a piece of evidence used in the commission of a crime. Correct. So we may have a little more room there.

Yeah. I think that is probably the most dangerous thing and the most corrosive thing, to your point, about being treated badly or abused in the park verbally. If they know they can flee without consequence, people are bolder. So I think that might be one thing. And then as far as the fine regime goes, perhaps if you have fled the police, you go directly to $500 without passing go. So if you take your medicine and get some advice on the spot, it's a small thing. If you take off, it's a big thing.

At that point, it's not administrative, right? We're going after them for a misdemeanor.

Same thing. We would go after criminals. charges in that situation rather than just a municipal code. Yeah.

Council Member Leary?

I want to address this issue about the paths through parks because I think some of these paths were intended to be bike paths. I haven't been on the ones in BT Collins, but I don't think the one in particularly in Sheldon Park was intended to be a bike path. And I do have concerns because it's getting difficult as a walker to walk in a lot of places because bikes seem to be taking precedence over people walking and they you know depending i mean some people may be very careful but if it's something that um is you know is forcing people to get off of the sidewalk to walk on the lawn or or stop and and let people go by that's i i just think that that um that's not really a great situation either you know so we're uh i would like to be able to identify what should be a walking and what should be considered a shared bikeway. I mean, we have the same problem in the state parks at this point, where you can walk and not be concerned about having somebody coming through the bike at even five or 10 miles an hour on narrow pathways doesn't allow you to feel like you're walking in a safe area. And I think that can happen, you know, 1 person may go through once or twice a week and it's not a big problem. But when people see those things. Happening people pride in duos on the sidewalk and you can't. You know, side by side, they don't 1 pull in front of the other. And as a Walker, you're ended up. More stuff off the walkway so, and I don't know how we can differentiate that, but I think that's an important consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Cuno.

Well, I guess just to kind of wrap up, I mean, I'm in favor of the ordinance. I would be okay with putting some sort of speed limit in the parks. You know, maybe we say 3 miles per hour or something just to kind of catch people's attention. The people who are not going to pay attention are not going to pay attention no matter what. Right? They're just not going to abide by it. And we know who they are, but maybe that just. You know, makes other people more aware. I agree with the comments about signage and also currently in the parks. There's signage that talks about. I think it says no motorized bicycles, but I don't think that. includes e-bike so already the signage in the park is very confusing and needs to be completely redone once this ordinance goes through um i would also be in favor of increasing the fines first fine is 100 bucks second fine is 250 third is 500. um i would also um like to give direction to the city manager to find some locations where we could say hey you can't do this stuff here but you can do it over here um and then i would ask that we we bring this back let's you know come back in six months come back again in a year and let us know you know is this working is this a tool in your toolbox that has been successful so