League of Women Voters of California
City of Folsom
City Charter Amendment
8,545 / 53.6% Yes votes ...... 7,402 / 46.4% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Results as of Nov 25 1:17pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (35/35)|
|Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments ||
Shall a City of Folsom Charter Amendment be approved that prohibits watermeter retrofits on pre-1992 single-family residences if the cost is paid by citizens; establishes different water rates for residences with meters and residences without meters; and allows all single-family residences, except those served by the San Juan Water District, to be charged a prorated share for Folsom's capital improvements and Water Forum obligations?
7.07A states that mandatory water meter retrofits either partially or wholly paid for by citizens are prohibited in the City of Folsom on single family residences existing prior to 1992. Proposed Section 7.07A further states that this provision does not in any way conflict with the provisions of Chapter 407 of Stats 1991, as codified within the California Water Code at Chapter 11, Section 110, and Chapter 8, commencing with Section 500.
Proposed Section 7.07B states that the City shall establish a water rate which differentiates between pre-1914 water right costs and water supplied by contract with the Southern California Water Company (SoCal) and the federal water contract (Public Law 101-514, Section 206 or the "Fazio water").
Proposed Section 7.07B further states that unmetered single family residences existing prior to 1992 shall be entitled to a flat rate of the City of Folsom's pre-1914 water right or a tiered rate with a high base line for pre-1992 residences,whichever is less.
Proposed Section 7.07B further states that the rate for metered residences supplied by other contractors (SoCal and Fazio water) shall include the actual cost of the water, including treatment.
Proposed Section 7.07B further states that all single family residences in Folsom, except those served by the San Juan Water District, may be charged for a prorated share of capital improvements and Water Forum obligations such as the acquisition of an alternative water supply during a period of drought.
News and Analysis|
|Arguments For Measure P||Arguments Against Measure P|
|A vote for the initiative is a vote to preserve your flat rate, regardless of whether you
have an unconnected meter or no meter. Once meters are hooked up, citizens
lose control and can be forced to cut back through higher rates.
Metered rates drive up costs because a service charge comparable to the current flat rate is added to cover meter readers and administration. Low water usage really won't reduce your bill.
Folsom residents are currently supplied with free water from its pre1914 water right. Some pay a surcharge for the SoCal water contract needed to serve new development in the East Area. The initiative ensures an equitable low rate based on cost of the water supplied to the customer.
In 1999 city officials promised no residents would pay for meter retrofits. The initiative guarantees this. Why spend $6 million to install meters in 6,600 homes built before 1992? The cost of installing meters far outweighs any benefit. Meters will not stop water wasters. Folsom citizens have proven they can conserve during a drought. A water conservation plan with strict enforcement can curtail water waste.
The city foolishly signed a contract obligating it to meter the whole town to acquire federal water for future development in the East Area. The initiative will force the city to renegotiate that contract. Sacramento County acquired federal water without having to meter everywhere. The City of Sacramento prohibits water meters in its charter. Why should Folsom have to meter everywhere?
Stop the city from spending millions on meters and free this money for a library, sewers, parks or affordable housing.
Keep Folsom green. Keep the flat rate. Keep costs down.
If you object to metering as a means to obtain water for new development south of Highway 50, vote for the initative.
/s Sara Myers, WaterMeter InitiativeCommittee and Former Folsom City CouncilMember
/s John Guest, Water Meter Initiative Committee and Businessman
/s Karen Forster, Water Meter Initiative Committee and Small Business Owner
/s Marie Carter, Water Meter Initiative Committee and Former Folsom Cordova School District Trustee
/s Earl Kipp, Treasurer, Water Meter Initiative Committee and Senior Activist
|The proponents of this measure say it is about water meters and water rates, but
it's really about having enough water.This amendment threatens 17 years of good
water planning to ensure an adequate water supply for Folsom! Here's the
background. All of Folsom's drinking water comes from Folsom Lake. Since 1985
Folsom's water policy has been to maximize the amount of water it has at hand so
the community would have sufficient water to use when and how it chooses and
minimize water shortages. One of the ways Folsom implemented that policy was
by contracting for 8,200 acre feet of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ("BOR")water per
This amendment violates BOR policy because it may prohibit water meters on older homes. If it passes, BOR says it will take that 8,200 acre feet away. BOR will give most of our water to Sacramento County for their use. Even in wet years Folsom would probably have to initiate new water conservation measures to make up for the shortage.If it passes, in dry years, residents will face water rationing like communities in neighboring counties.
Let's talk about water meters. California law requires water meters on all homes built since 1992. Folsom has complied with that law from the outset. Each new home buyer paid for their water meters in the price of their home. Folsom's new home owners have also paid some of the cost to expand the water treatment facility and to retrofit existing homes with water meters. In short, the new home buyers have already paid towards a retrofit and upgrade program which benefits all of Folsom's residents. The proponents of this amendment happily accept these benefits. They should also pay their fair share (about $1.45 per month per household). Vote "No"!
/s Jeff Starsky, Mayor of Folsom
/s Christina Polley, Vice President, Folsom Chamber of Commerce
/s Robert G. Holderness, Former Folsom Mayor
/s Kerri M. Howell, Vice Mayor of Folsom
/s Neva Cimaroli, Longtime Resident & Business Owner