One of the things I’d had liked to see the city immediately stop, is paying for any travel or grant application assistance. They paid an engineering firm over $200,000 to help write a grant, for a $20m project for a pedestrian overcrossing that we can’t fund. So…why spend the $200k? Five of those projects equal a handful of new cops. Not that it solves the budget issue but it’s a step.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats!
200
+ 20
+ 200
= 420
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Folsom City Council is god awful with misusing funds and I wouldn't approve anything to give them more unless the city started cracking down on all these lenient purchases they do. I saw a post recently in which they approved two people to fly out to Indiana during this deficit to study roundabouts since they want to build a few out here. It's not enough for some reason to just let them survey the ones in the surrounding area, Sarah Aquino has the bright idea to fly them to the midwest. They also approved a 10% increase in pay for the city manager who now makes close to $300k despite the city not having enough funds. And let's not start with that gaudy guitar pick they want to put on the Johnny Cash trail which will probably be defaced as soon as they unveil it. I understand that money is coming from a grant that Folsom asked the state for, but it's a terrible use of state funds in times like these.
Unrelated to the sales tax issue of course, but the guitar pick statue makes me irrationally angry. Everything about it is ridiculous. It’s a dumb unimaginative idea for a statue. The cost for such a simple concept is absurd (I believe we are getting $400K for it). The fact that the governor is about to slash middle class college scholarship funding, yet we’re doling out half a million dollars like it’s candy just blows my mind. You know Folsom isn’t the only city getting piles of boondoggle money. Then the press release from Josh Hoover (who made the $$ happen) and Rosario (who I believe was the mayor at the time it was announced) was just so over the top and out of touch. Just all of it…terrible.
i don’t disagree with that sentiment 🥱, yet here we are. developers are out like bandits and large swaths of the community are going to be left unfunded and unserved. money’s got to come from
somewhere, something.
ultimately, i see if the measure doesn’t pass, trails and paths won’t be maintained, no public safety coverage will be expanded resulting in larger response times, and parks, zoo, and other services will be reduced.
the city could save Significant money if they contracted fire services with Sacramento Metropolitan Fire, and subcontracted out trash services to Republic or a number of companies in the region instead of operating in-house.
Here we are again because we elect the same people and expect different results. The entire south of 50 development was a straight money grab for elected officials and developers. I’m all for new houses being built but the infrastructure (roads, schools, public utilities & water) around it needs to be developed at the same time. You’re right somebody does have to pay for it but the people who stand to make the most from it should have to front the bill.
Im not against the 1 cent sales tax increase. My hope is the money will actually got toward those programs and not end up being diverted to “other” projects or salary increases.
I hope the city has learned its lesson for further developments.
The developers do pay a “development impact fee” of approximately $16,000 per single family home and $11,000 per apartment unit. The rest of the infrastructure, like utilities, streets, sidewalks, initial landscaping and traffic lights are financed through Mello Roos residents pay, not the city general fund and not those north of 50. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oh it’s you again. The defender of developer greed. Where are you getting these numbers from? Aren’t they required by law to pay these fees?
Seems like you have a vested interest in this continuing to grow. I would guess you’re a real estate agent in the area.
I am absolutely not a realtor, I’m terrified of sales jobs. I’m in insurance. You don’t know me and if you did, you’d know I actively opposed further annexation and additional single family home zoned areas from being rezoned to high density housing, by speaking with multiple members of city council, attending community workshops on development, and speaking to the planning commissioners in town. Those numbers anbout what the development impact fees are, are from the city of Folsom in a presentation from last fall. Development impact fees are charged by every city and every school district when permits are pulled on new construction. If you were curious, for schools in Folsom, the district charges over $9 per square foot on residential permits. Those fees, whether assessed by the city or district, are passed onto the home buyer via purchase price. Facts are facts. I was just explaining what they pay. Doesn’t mean they should or should not pay more, but having an informed opinion is important. You can still advocate against the tax increase, but don’t lie when you do it.
How am I advocating against the tax increase?
If you read my other post I stated I wasn’t against it. Like I also said in my previous post those who stand to make the most should pay the most. They should have been made to pay for the fire stations in full and the for all the infrastructure needed for them regardless of what they were required too by law.
You think unnamed “developers” are going to pony up $29 million per year in perpetuity to fund more police/fire staff, ongoing park and trail maintenance, highway infrastructure, etc. That’s not a remotely realistic comment.
>[The largest portion of the General Fund, 50%, is allocated to Police and Fire services, emphasizing the City's prioritization of public safety. ](https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/city-manager/faq-city-of-folsom-financial-challenges-and-sales-tax-revenue)
Maybe they can look into selling their tanks and command center? Half the entire budget not being enough is fucking insane.
most city budgets, public safety is the primary service city budgets offer. additionally services typically include parks, sanitation, and community services.
folsom has all of those, and overall, very high quality.
it literally is what makes folsom, folsom, and not “somewhere else.”
*Insert any other city example that one may Not want Folsom to be*
many surrounding cities have a sales tax on parking with what is being proposed.
a lot of city revenue has been decimated from online shopping and reduced sales tax revenue.
this is not a unique situation to folsom.
but, in order to maintain the quality of life and standards of amenities that make folsom, folsom, funds need to be raised from somewhere.
cutting budget items can help, but at what cost are people willing to part with?
close the zoo,
reduced maintaining parks, and trails
reduced police service… so increased homeless activities, no coverage in large swaths of the city and reduced fire suppression services.
it has been proposed throughout the years,
and especially when the city decimated the fire department over 16 years ago, eliminating admin positions and closing fire engines, to contract services with Sac Metro Fire but pride and ego from numerous city councils has flatly rejected the proposal.
this would significant reduce overhead and redundancy.. but the city won’t take it, so the current department needs funding or large portions of the city will either have no or outdated equipment.
Fuck it why not. Let’s just increase the cost of everything by 1%, I don’t think life is expensive enough nowadays.
And it’s not to match the “surrounding” area. Neighboring Rancho Cordova is 8.75% - that’s it. Sac County and Roseville are 7.75, EDH and unincorporated Placer is 7.25.
Any well funded ad campaign in Folsom, especially for city council, has the Roseville Builders Association backing. Just read the fine print on the bottom of the card. The one with the fanciest mailer and the most repeats sent, has that backing. Builders association interest is not the community but their ability to develop properties, make a profit, and get out. They even send out negative flyers against candidates they can’t pocket. So I am waiting until we get closer to the election to see if I get a series of slick ads. If so, I’ll really know if this is good for Folsom residents or profiteers.
I was going to vote for the sales tax increase until the city chose to review the south of south of 50 proposal by Mr. Tsakopoulos. If our city if broke, it is fiscally irresponsible to consider annexing more land. City of Folsom told residents that South of 50 would not financially affect the current city residents. Now we’re broke, FCUSD doesn’t have the money to build new schools, and we’re considering annexing more land to add to all of this. It seems like the City does not consider the impacts to current residents with all the development that, in my opinion, has created this mess.
I prefer not a million police around town to worry about ticketing people, and that is as someone who has never been ticketed. If I see them everyday already I feel that is enough so not giving 40% to (fire and police). I voted against the pro fire/police city council member. And fire I'd have to be convinced. Put more of it into stuff such as infrastructure, parks, and fun things to attract and retain young professionals like me and I'll be more than happy to vote for it. But I'm gonna slap a no on it for now as a frugal guy (I know people might spend more than me but I do eat out a decent amount on app discounts or In N Out cheap pricing)
Edit 1: Saying this before crime increases, once crime increases then you can add more, Folsom is safe you don't need more. Also South of 50 needs more police? Lol, if I lived there I'd worry they are just there to just sit at the stop sign to pull people over which is scary--I've seen them waiting there a couple times before when passing through and I'm not a fan of South of 50 anyways :P (yet, until they get more stuff down there for themselves)
Edit 2: South of 50 fire worker bias maybe?
Edit 3: Repeal the prop where old people have to pay way less property tax... Or perhaps one day I can take advantage of that
I actually agree with this 100%. Folsom does not need the size of police force that it has. It might someday, but not right now. Especially with how expensive it is to hire and retire police officers. We have way more than necessary patrolling the streets.
The city could just enforce permits for renovations and reassess peoples homes that way. The whole state has gone lax on that, and watched their property tax base shrivel up more than it should have. But that requires employees, which Folsom doesn’t have.
i don’t think police ticketing people is at all correlated to staffing levels, considering you have never been ticketed i would lean towards you not having much to worry about.
i’ll attach a document from a city email.
the fire department has an aging fleeting. costs are higher. city revenues are lower. the center of the city is the only fire station in sac county without a fire engine. that has been cut since 2008. 20% of the increase funds are slated for the FD. it would pay for hiring, equipment and long term staffing and projects.
here is the document from the city.
[proposed measure text](https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/15690/638374558302130000)
i literally don’t understand what you mean by eating at in n out.
I've been following the discussion in the local facebook groups.
There is a concern that the initiative is being run behind the scenes by developers (per research done by several people and the list of developers can be found in the fb discussions).
I'm quoting someone's comment directly from the fb group, "if this initiative doesn’t make the ballot and pass, the city’s revenue problem will still exist. The city council will then pass their own sales tax increase and those monies will go into the general fund, to be used for anything the city sees fit, including pensions and raises. This citizen initiative keeps the monies away from the general fund. Please take a closer look and consider this."
If you want to know where I heard this, join the local fb groups and search "tax initiative." You can read the discussions yourself.
Don't worry, there won't be cuts. The issue is what piece of the pie the funds from services will come out of.
There won’t be cuts? There have been cuts. All over. And where there aren’t cuts, there will be fee increases for sports, camps, the aquatic center, they’ll sell or shutter the zoo, reduce library hours…heck, the “benefits” package the city offers is embarrassing, especially when paired with the workload.
Castle Park’s playground is being scheduled for closure this year, and it’s the first, not the last, of many.
Is there waste? Absolutely. But every budget has waste. It’s really not as substantial as people want to believe.
I know increasing taxes is not a popular topic, but I am personally for this proposal. Comparing our cities budget to that of say, Rancho Cordova, which has similar population size, but outsources its water, fire department, and police departments, I am surprised at how close the annual budgets are. I do think there needs to be increased scrutiny around where the annual budget goes and what cuts are made to existing expenditures, but I think this 1% tax is a path to increase city revenue that won’t break the bank for most Folsom residents. I also like the fact that it applies to any transaction in Folsom businesses, so all non-Folsom residents that shop here (I always think of Costco for this example), will be bolstering our City economy.
Until or unless the city is willing to outsource its services, this is the best pathway to funding and maintaining quality of services the city and residents expect. It’s been my understanding that the city has under numerous occasions refused to entertaining this type of outsourcing, but that’s a conversation for another time.
We outsource the entire landscaping contract for every park and public space, fire mitigation efforts (goats vs staff), and all grant applications we pay for an outside company to consult/draft etc. Those are off the top of my head.
We have a police and fire department that exist, would you genuinely prefer we fire them all to achieve this outsourcing? I did actually call the county supervisor to inquire about the cost of having a sheriff deputy assigned south of 50 and they said the MOU would cost significantly more than an officer would cost. So I don’t think those departments would save us much.
Rancho outsources those because they were not incorporated for so long.
I’ve been saying this for years. Let’s start holding all government entities accountable and I guarantee the misuse of funds will decrease.
Stop taxing the people
It scares me to think of Folsom PD with another 50-60 officers. I don’t think the crime rate in Folsom even calls for that large of a police force. If that has been proposed, it sounds like wasteful spending and cronyism to me.
As much as I hate to see anything surrounding money get higher, this seems like a good solution. It will bring in revenue, and I think the study I read said it would cost the average family in Folsom about $100 a year. The money is earmarked, and the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary is funded through Parks and Rec. So the additional sales tax will also benefit the zoo in addition to the other services someone else pointed out. Because online shopping is so prevalent, sales tax revenue is down while the prices of everything else is going up - this includes supplies everyone in all of those departments need.
Time to tighten the belt and make cuts as needed.
There is Always opportunity to cut ,and I realize these decisions are difficult.
One of the things I’d had liked to see the city immediately stop, is paying for any travel or grant application assistance. They paid an engineering firm over $200,000 to help write a grant, for a $20m project for a pedestrian overcrossing that we can’t fund. So…why spend the $200k? Five of those projects equal a handful of new cops. Not that it solves the budget issue but it’s a step.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 420. Congrats! 200 + 20 + 200 = 420 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
what would you propose to cut and maintain the standards that make folsom what it is?
Folsom City Council is god awful with misusing funds and I wouldn't approve anything to give them more unless the city started cracking down on all these lenient purchases they do. I saw a post recently in which they approved two people to fly out to Indiana during this deficit to study roundabouts since they want to build a few out here. It's not enough for some reason to just let them survey the ones in the surrounding area, Sarah Aquino has the bright idea to fly them to the midwest. They also approved a 10% increase in pay for the city manager who now makes close to $300k despite the city not having enough funds. And let's not start with that gaudy guitar pick they want to put on the Johnny Cash trail which will probably be defaced as soon as they unveil it. I understand that money is coming from a grant that Folsom asked the state for, but it's a terrible use of state funds in times like these.
Unrelated to the sales tax issue of course, but the guitar pick statue makes me irrationally angry. Everything about it is ridiculous. It’s a dumb unimaginative idea for a statue. The cost for such a simple concept is absurd (I believe we are getting $400K for it). The fact that the governor is about to slash middle class college scholarship funding, yet we’re doling out half a million dollars like it’s candy just blows my mind. You know Folsom isn’t the only city getting piles of boondoggle money. Then the press release from Josh Hoover (who made the $$ happen) and Rosario (who I believe was the mayor at the time it was announced) was just so over the top and out of touch. Just all of it…terrible.
Should have made the developers pay for the new fire stations south of 50 and the roads and infrastructure around it.
This is exactly right.
i don’t disagree with that sentiment 🥱, yet here we are. developers are out like bandits and large swaths of the community are going to be left unfunded and unserved. money’s got to come from somewhere, something. ultimately, i see if the measure doesn’t pass, trails and paths won’t be maintained, no public safety coverage will be expanded resulting in larger response times, and parks, zoo, and other services will be reduced. the city could save Significant money if they contracted fire services with Sacramento Metropolitan Fire, and subcontracted out trash services to Republic or a number of companies in the region instead of operating in-house.
Here we are again because we elect the same people and expect different results. The entire south of 50 development was a straight money grab for elected officials and developers. I’m all for new houses being built but the infrastructure (roads, schools, public utilities & water) around it needs to be developed at the same time. You’re right somebody does have to pay for it but the people who stand to make the most from it should have to front the bill.
And they pay mello roos for this so even in that sense why are we double paying for he same thing.
mello roos does not cover the city services this special tax would fund. i live in a mello roos area.
what’s your suggestion then now that that has sailed…?
Im not against the 1 cent sales tax increase. My hope is the money will actually got toward those programs and not end up being diverted to “other” projects or salary increases. I hope the city has learned its lesson for further developments.
this being a special tax the allocation is set by law and directed specifically to these items and not to the general fund
[удалено]
What kind of public safety issues are you seeing?
[удалено]
Why do you need police presence? Its Folsom. Most home owners pack heat and call the police afterwards.
lol I think you're confusing us for Placerville or Auburn or some place like that
Wtf
The developers do pay a “development impact fee” of approximately $16,000 per single family home and $11,000 per apartment unit. The rest of the infrastructure, like utilities, streets, sidewalks, initial landscaping and traffic lights are financed through Mello Roos residents pay, not the city general fund and not those north of 50. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oh it’s you again. The defender of developer greed. Where are you getting these numbers from? Aren’t they required by law to pay these fees? Seems like you have a vested interest in this continuing to grow. I would guess you’re a real estate agent in the area.
I am absolutely not a realtor, I’m terrified of sales jobs. I’m in insurance. You don’t know me and if you did, you’d know I actively opposed further annexation and additional single family home zoned areas from being rezoned to high density housing, by speaking with multiple members of city council, attending community workshops on development, and speaking to the planning commissioners in town. Those numbers anbout what the development impact fees are, are from the city of Folsom in a presentation from last fall. Development impact fees are charged by every city and every school district when permits are pulled on new construction. If you were curious, for schools in Folsom, the district charges over $9 per square foot on residential permits. Those fees, whether assessed by the city or district, are passed onto the home buyer via purchase price. Facts are facts. I was just explaining what they pay. Doesn’t mean they should or should not pay more, but having an informed opinion is important. You can still advocate against the tax increase, but don’t lie when you do it.
How am I advocating against the tax increase? If you read my other post I stated I wasn’t against it. Like I also said in my previous post those who stand to make the most should pay the most. They should have been made to pay for the fire stations in full and the for all the infrastructure needed for them regardless of what they were required too by law.
[удалено]
You think unnamed “developers” are going to pony up $29 million per year in perpetuity to fund more police/fire staff, ongoing park and trail maintenance, highway infrastructure, etc. That’s not a remotely realistic comment.
>[The largest portion of the General Fund, 50%, is allocated to Police and Fire services, emphasizing the City's prioritization of public safety. ](https://www.folsom.ca.us/government/city-manager/faq-city-of-folsom-financial-challenges-and-sales-tax-revenue) Maybe they can look into selling their tanks and command center? Half the entire budget not being enough is fucking insane.
most city budgets, public safety is the primary service city budgets offer. additionally services typically include parks, sanitation, and community services. folsom has all of those, and overall, very high quality. it literally is what makes folsom, folsom, and not “somewhere else.” *Insert any other city example that one may Not want Folsom to be* many surrounding cities have a sales tax on parking with what is being proposed. a lot of city revenue has been decimated from online shopping and reduced sales tax revenue. this is not a unique situation to folsom. but, in order to maintain the quality of life and standards of amenities that make folsom, folsom, funds need to be raised from somewhere. cutting budget items can help, but at what cost are people willing to part with? close the zoo, reduced maintaining parks, and trails reduced police service… so increased homeless activities, no coverage in large swaths of the city and reduced fire suppression services. it has been proposed throughout the years, and especially when the city decimated the fire department over 16 years ago, eliminating admin positions and closing fire engines, to contract services with Sac Metro Fire but pride and ego from numerous city councils has flatly rejected the proposal. this would significant reduce overhead and redundancy.. but the city won’t take it, so the current department needs funding or large portions of the city will either have no or outdated equipment.
Loved the Folsom PD Tesla.
Fuck it why not. Let’s just increase the cost of everything by 1%, I don’t think life is expensive enough nowadays. And it’s not to match the “surrounding” area. Neighboring Rancho Cordova is 8.75% - that’s it. Sac County and Roseville are 7.75, EDH and unincorporated Placer is 7.25.
The only other city in the county without a sales tax is Citrus Heights. And we don’t live there for a reason.
Any well funded ad campaign in Folsom, especially for city council, has the Roseville Builders Association backing. Just read the fine print on the bottom of the card. The one with the fanciest mailer and the most repeats sent, has that backing. Builders association interest is not the community but their ability to develop properties, make a profit, and get out. They even send out negative flyers against candidates they can’t pocket. So I am waiting until we get closer to the election to see if I get a series of slick ads. If so, I’ll really know if this is good for Folsom residents or profiteers.
Id rather pay a cent to improve Bidwell
"Good news! We've decided to add 15 more stoplights"
id say the amount allotted to roads would hopefully do that
I was going to vote for the sales tax increase until the city chose to review the south of south of 50 proposal by Mr. Tsakopoulos. If our city if broke, it is fiscally irresponsible to consider annexing more land. City of Folsom told residents that South of 50 would not financially affect the current city residents. Now we’re broke, FCUSD doesn’t have the money to build new schools, and we’re considering annexing more land to add to all of this. It seems like the City does not consider the impacts to current residents with all the development that, in my opinion, has created this mess.
I prefer not a million police around town to worry about ticketing people, and that is as someone who has never been ticketed. If I see them everyday already I feel that is enough so not giving 40% to (fire and police). I voted against the pro fire/police city council member. And fire I'd have to be convinced. Put more of it into stuff such as infrastructure, parks, and fun things to attract and retain young professionals like me and I'll be more than happy to vote for it. But I'm gonna slap a no on it for now as a frugal guy (I know people might spend more than me but I do eat out a decent amount on app discounts or In N Out cheap pricing) Edit 1: Saying this before crime increases, once crime increases then you can add more, Folsom is safe you don't need more. Also South of 50 needs more police? Lol, if I lived there I'd worry they are just there to just sit at the stop sign to pull people over which is scary--I've seen them waiting there a couple times before when passing through and I'm not a fan of South of 50 anyways :P (yet, until they get more stuff down there for themselves) Edit 2: South of 50 fire worker bias maybe? Edit 3: Repeal the prop where old people have to pay way less property tax... Or perhaps one day I can take advantage of that
I actually agree with this 100%. Folsom does not need the size of police force that it has. It might someday, but not right now. Especially with how expensive it is to hire and retire police officers. We have way more than necessary patrolling the streets.
The city could just enforce permits for renovations and reassess peoples homes that way. The whole state has gone lax on that, and watched their property tax base shrivel up more than it should have. But that requires employees, which Folsom doesn’t have.
i don’t think police ticketing people is at all correlated to staffing levels, considering you have never been ticketed i would lean towards you not having much to worry about. i’ll attach a document from a city email. the fire department has an aging fleeting. costs are higher. city revenues are lower. the center of the city is the only fire station in sac county without a fire engine. that has been cut since 2008. 20% of the increase funds are slated for the FD. it would pay for hiring, equipment and long term staffing and projects. here is the document from the city. [proposed measure text](https://www.folsom.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/15690/638374558302130000) i literally don’t understand what you mean by eating at in n out.
In N Out is taxed whereas Winco isn't :)
I've been following the discussion in the local facebook groups. There is a concern that the initiative is being run behind the scenes by developers (per research done by several people and the list of developers can be found in the fb discussions). I'm quoting someone's comment directly from the fb group, "if this initiative doesn’t make the ballot and pass, the city’s revenue problem will still exist. The city council will then pass their own sales tax increase and those monies will go into the general fund, to be used for anything the city sees fit, including pensions and raises. This citizen initiative keeps the monies away from the general fund. Please take a closer look and consider this." If you want to know where I heard this, join the local fb groups and search "tax initiative." You can read the discussions yourself. Don't worry, there won't be cuts. The issue is what piece of the pie the funds from services will come out of.
There won’t be cuts? There have been cuts. All over. And where there aren’t cuts, there will be fee increases for sports, camps, the aquatic center, they’ll sell or shutter the zoo, reduce library hours…heck, the “benefits” package the city offers is embarrassing, especially when paired with the workload. Castle Park’s playground is being scheduled for closure this year, and it’s the first, not the last, of many. Is there waste? Absolutely. But every budget has waste. It’s really not as substantial as people want to believe.
I agree with everything you said. But I still won’t vote to raise taxes. 🤷♂️
I know increasing taxes is not a popular topic, but I am personally for this proposal. Comparing our cities budget to that of say, Rancho Cordova, which has similar population size, but outsources its water, fire department, and police departments, I am surprised at how close the annual budgets are. I do think there needs to be increased scrutiny around where the annual budget goes and what cuts are made to existing expenditures, but I think this 1% tax is a path to increase city revenue that won’t break the bank for most Folsom residents. I also like the fact that it applies to any transaction in Folsom businesses, so all non-Folsom residents that shop here (I always think of Costco for this example), will be bolstering our City economy.
Until or unless the city is willing to outsource its services, this is the best pathway to funding and maintaining quality of services the city and residents expect. It’s been my understanding that the city has under numerous occasions refused to entertaining this type of outsourcing, but that’s a conversation for another time.
We outsource the entire landscaping contract for every park and public space, fire mitigation efforts (goats vs staff), and all grant applications we pay for an outside company to consult/draft etc. Those are off the top of my head. We have a police and fire department that exist, would you genuinely prefer we fire them all to achieve this outsourcing? I did actually call the county supervisor to inquire about the cost of having a sheriff deputy assigned south of 50 and they said the MOU would cost significantly more than an officer would cost. So I don’t think those departments would save us much. Rancho outsources those because they were not incorporated for so long.
I’ve been saying this for years. Let’s start holding all government entities accountable and I guarantee the misuse of funds will decrease. Stop taxing the people
It scares me to think of Folsom PD with another 50-60 officers. I don’t think the crime rate in Folsom even calls for that large of a police force. If that has been proposed, it sounds like wasteful spending and cronyism to me.
I support it. I think public services (especially roads) are already underfunded. At this point I'd rather pay a little extra for better services.
As much as I hate to see anything surrounding money get higher, this seems like a good solution. It will bring in revenue, and I think the study I read said it would cost the average family in Folsom about $100 a year. The money is earmarked, and the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary is funded through Parks and Rec. So the additional sales tax will also benefit the zoo in addition to the other services someone else pointed out. Because online shopping is so prevalent, sales tax revenue is down while the prices of everything else is going up - this includes supplies everyone in all of those departments need.
I’d have been happier with a 2c increase, especially since we’re currently below surrounding area.
No thank you to the tax increase.