This article is part of Folsom Times’ 2026 Coffee with Candidates series, featuring one-on-one conversations with candidates in key local races. Through video interviews and accompanying digital coverage, candidates respond to a series of questions developed with input from the community, giving voters an opportunity to hear directly from those seeking office on issues important to the region.
In this segment, we sit down with Jag Nagendra, candidate for Folsom City Council District 3. An engineer and project manager, Nagendra has more than 35 years of experience leading teams and managing complex infrastructure programs in the public and private sectors. He immigrated to the United States from Bangalore, India, in 2000 and has more than 15 years of experience in community involvement, including nonprofit leadership, service on city and county commissions, mentoring entrepreneurs and volunteer work. His professional background includes infrastructure, project, program and change management.
Q: Folsom continues to grow, particularly south of Highway 50. While the city also faces aging infrastructure and maintenance needs in established areas, do you believe Folsom’s infrastructure is keeping pace with its growth? What would you do differently, if anything, and would you ever support slowing or delaying development until necessary infrastructure is in place?
Nagendra: Wow, great question. I think this is the question that I’ve been getting from the residents as I go around and meet up with my district. There are a couple of questions in that question. So let me answer the easiest one.
Would I support slowing down the growth until we keep up with the pace? I would definitely consider that because there is no point in growing and then not having infrastructure. That could lead to public safety issues. That could lead to city liabilities. That could lead to lawsuits, which we’re going to spend more money fighting.
So when it comes to growth, I believe that we must grow, right? It’s like in business: If you’re not growing, you’re dying. So as a city, we must grow. We must provide opportunity for more and more people to be able to make a living and also be able to work here.
What we have seen, or what I have seen personally, is that the city’s infrastructure, especially south of 50, has not kept pace with the way we are building the houses there. I love the houses that we’re getting built. We’re probably building 600 to 650 units a year. That’s probably the kind of permits that we are issuing.
However, if you take that number, we are close to 6,000-plus units south of 50, and I cannot believe that we have given one park in that community. And that is completely not acceptable. So that means we are saying that right now we have probably close to 15,000 to 20,000 people living there, and we have one park, and that is not acceptable at all.
So what do I want to do, considering the fact that we are not keeping up with the pace? Obviously, I cannot go back and undo things that were already done, but there are a few things that we can do right now.
Number one, based on the specific area plan, we have some projects that are on the books. So, for example, we are right now designing a park, and that’s probably going to get built in the next three years. But that by itself is not enough because in three years we’re going to add 1,800 homes if we don’t slow down. So we’re still lacking with that.
My idea would be to find ways to build additional parks, find ways to fast-track these projects. That comes from my background in project management, my background in change management, my background in program management as an engineer. We can fast-track these projects.
Now, these are all funded by the developer impact fees, and we have the money. It’s not like we have to go and borrow the money or we have to issue bonds to get the money to build these things.
I am not understanding why we are not building this infrastructure in time for these residents to enjoy, because the more delays we have, it’s going to have two things. One, the residents will be frustrated, and they may want to leave Folsom and go somewhere else where they have better facilities. And two, more delays mean that the parks are going to cost more money to build than the money that we already collected.
So this is going to be a cycle, and I think we want to get out of this mindset that we will build whenever we can. We will build and follow the regular process. I want to challenge all of us and say, let’s build faster. Let’s build the infrastructure right now, including parks.
Whether we’re talking about a library, for example, they need a library there. We only have one library in Folsom right now. On average, we probably look at, you know, 30,000 to 40,000 population per library. We’re getting close to 100,000. We don’t even have a talk about a second library.
It is extremely frustrating that these types of basic infrastructure — and third, talk about traffic. I just cannot imagine and believe the fact that East Bidwell is the main artery from north to south, even though we all knew that we are going to have 10,000 homes there, but we have kept silent. We have kept wishing that some act of God is going to save us, but that is not going to be the case.
We see the traffic issues that we have, and I want to start looking at what are the alternatives. I want to start looking at how can we keep some of the residents south of 50 so that they have fewer opportunities to travel to the north. Can we bring those facilities? Can we bring that retail? Can we bring those things fast enough so that we can keep up with the pace of how the houses are getting built?
Q: Traffic congestion remains a major concern, particularly around East Bidwell Street and Highway 50. What do you believe the city can realistically do to improve traffic over the next four years? And where do projects such as the Empire Ranch Road interchange, Alder Creek Parkway, and improvements to existing roads rank among your priorities?
Nagendra: Another great question. That’s on everybody’s mind in Folsom. I cannot promise that the Empire Ranch interchange will be built in the next two years or three years. I think people and the residents are looking for some type of relief right now because they are not able to wait five years, 10 years for something to be built.
I guess my point is that we need to start looking at our other entry and exit points to Folsom, whether it is Prairie City or Folsom Boulevard. How can we use these streets that we currently have to lessen some of the burden that we are seeing on East Bidwell?
Looking at the problem and not taking any action is something unacceptable. So, for example, we can say that we have existing infrastructure, but what are we doing to divert the people over there? Are we working with Google Maps to see that if the people are coming to Folsom, we can reroute them or we can route them in a certain direction?
So we could do that. We can ask Google to take this route for people who are coming instead of taking East Bidwell. That’s one of the options that I can think about.
Other options we can look at are modernizing the traffic control system. I know Folsom has started working on it. Again, it’s late in the game, but we’re trying to fix the thing which we should have done in the first place itself.
And then as we continue to work on the Empire Ranch interchange or Empire Ranch Road, I am concerned that we don’t have the money to build it. That’s what I hear. And I don’t know where the money is going to come from to build it.
So if we put all our eggs in one basket, which is on Empire Ranch, we’re going to lose out on other opportunities and other behavior changes in the residents to start using some of the streets that we currently have.
And I can see Prairie City is underutilized. I can also see that we have Folsom Boulevard that we can start looking at how we can do that, and also start looking at where we can widen the lanes, if we can start looking at adding more lanes. And that’s something that we can start looking at doing right now.
Q: Do you believe new development should pay for the full cost it creates for the city, including roads, parks, public safety and other services, as well as the long-term maintenance and eventual replacement of that infrastructure? Would you support adjusting development and permit fees if studies show current fees don’t fully recover those costs?
Nagendra: Well, this is a very, very tricky question. The answer is, it depends.
And the reason I say it depends is that, for example, if we go with adjusting the fees on the permitting and development impact fees, then naturally we are increasing the cost of housing. That’s going to get added to the housing cost.
On the other side, we are lacking on the affordable housing issues. We are lacking on the housing itself, and it’s becoming unaffordable.
So there is some type of balance we need to find. Right now, what we have is not working. It’s not that the developers are taking on the responsibility for all infrastructure, but some things are falling onto the city. And as we have seen for the last 15, 20 years, that’s not really working, that particular model.
So we have to come up with a way where we can fix these, but without compromising on the affordability issue that we currently have. Because one way, I want to make sure that we have the developers pay the fees, pay for the infrastructure, but at the same time, I want to make sure that we remain affordable.
Once we become unaffordable, then everything goes into the slippery slope right there. So it depends.
Again, I don’t have all the numbers in front of me, but I would love to explore the options of what this means in terms of where we have the gaps and also where we can fix these gaps and fill these gaps so that we can hold the developers accountable for what their share is.
And at the same time, we have to do long-term planning from the city perspective. It’s not going to be just one, two years, but we also have to do a long-term plan. Not only just a plan, but we also have to follow through on the plan and execute the plan and make corrections on the way.
We just cannot wait for 15 years and then wake up one day and say we don’t have any money in the account. That’s not going to work because we have to be monitoring and we have to be accountable on a yearly basis or a quarterly basis to all of these that we are seeing.
And I think that’s the only way we can look at it. But again, I can’t say at this point in time that I will fully support putting everything on the developer, nor would I say that the city continues to do everything what they’re doing right now because, as we can see as a resident, it’s not working.
But something has to change, and that something needs to be determined based on the factors such as not increasing the cost of the housing to an extent that it becomes unaffordable.
I also want to help the business community so that they can thrive in Folsom. And if it’s unaffordable housing that people are not going to be able to buy here, then they go to Rancho Cordova or they go to Roseville, and then we have a bigger problem to solve.
Q: Folsom faces increasing costs for infrastructure and city services while also having to maintain a balanced budget. Would you support asking voters to consider another local sales tax or other revenue measure in the future? If not, how would you address the city’s long-term infrastructure and service needs without additional taxes?
Nagendra: Good question. I would support asking the residents to approve another sales tax increase measure. However, with two conditions, and I want to make sure that it’s clear to my constituents.
Number one, I want to make sure that the city has exhausted all options to reduce wasteful spending, to reduce inefficiencies in processes, so that we have nowhere to go and nowhere to cut.
That’s number one. It is extremely important for me to understand that we have done and we have exhausted everything.
And second, we as a City Council earn the trust of the residents first. I am not going to support any increase three months into my office. It’s going to take six months to a year to build the trust with the residents before we even ask for any money.
How can I go and ask somebody for money when that person doesn’t even trust me?
And I think, as a City Council, my conditions are that once we earn the trust of the residents, once we exhaust all the avenues for spending cuts without compromising or impacting the basic essential services, I will definitely support the increase in the sales tax revenue measures on the ballot.
Q: Residents in established areas of Folsom frequently raise concerns about aging streets, parks, trails and other infrastructure. How should the city balance maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods with spending on infrastructure needed to serve newer development? What should be fixed first when there isn’t enough money to do everything?
Nagendra: It sounds like this is a question related to how do we prioritize? We don’t have enough money. That’s another topic. But whatever money we have, how do we prioritize?
We have existing mature neighborhoods. We have new neighborhoods coming up. And I’ll give you an example. North of 50, the communities, the infrastructure is probably 20 years old. And the parks that we have built, 48 parks, I would say — don’t quote me on the exact number — probably four or five are newer than 20 years, and most of them are 20 years or older. They’re aging right now.
And when you talk about aging infrastructure, I think I can speak to that better because in my day job, that’s what I deal with. I deal with the aging infrastructure for our entire water system. That includes a lake, dams, canals, pump stations and generating stations and so on.
So we have come up with a way to manage aging infrastructure, and I think it is a universal philosophy.
Number one, it is called risk-based methodology, which is to understand the risks of each of these aging infrastructure. Ask the question, what happens if you don’t fix it? And what is the risk here? And then understand what are the consequences of this risk and understand what is the likelihood of this particular risk happening.
So based on that, come up with very clear data, and that data should tell us what should be our priority.
Again, the way I work is based on risk-informed decision-making and also data-driven decision-making. We need data to make decisions. At the same time, we also need to understand the risk because data only tells me half the story, but the risk will tell me the other half of the story.
So, for example, we may be prioritizing a park based on, let’s say, the residents are asking for it, right? But there may be a park where someone is ready to fall and file a lawsuit for $10 million. That’s a huge liability there. So there’s a risk factor there.
And then there’s another park where you may have an injury, you may have people unable to use certain services, but there’s a risk of liability, a risk of public safety.
We need to weigh both these factors. So my way of prioritization of where to put the money is based on the risks, the highest risk we see and a risk factor, at the same time with some data. Not emotions, not somebody’s wishes, somebody likes it, not my pet project, but it has to be based on data, why we have to do certain sorts of things.
Q: As Folsom’s population and developed area continue to grow, what should the city be doing to ensure police, fire and emergency medical services keep pace? Do you believe current staffing and funding are adequate? And if not, how would you pay for additional resources?
Nagendra: Excellent, excellent question. Public safety, and also making sure that the people who live in Folsom and also work in Folsom feel safe, is part of my vision for this campaign.
Based on the information and the data that I see, we are growing faster, and we don’t have the adequate resources to support this growth, both in fire and police and emergency services.
We probably have to think about how we can increase the reach. I congratulate Fire Chief Solak’s idea of single-role for paramedics and EMS. That is giving us more resources to manage the emergency management service side of the business. But that’s also basically taking away some of the firefighting tools as well.
So what I want to do is I want to work with them. They are the experts. The police and the fire, they are the experts in understanding what the community needs are.
And basically, I want to work toward providing the services to the residents as close as possible. Now, if we have the fire station south of 50, for example, we need another fire station there. We need more cops to be around that neighborhood.
As I’m walking around and talking to people, they are not feeling really that much safe, and we need to make sure that we have that piece covered.
And then it comes down to the benchmarking. It comes down to, are we benchmarked to certain standards? Are we benchmarked to public safety guidelines, which is either the state level or the similar city level?
And then the question comes up with that: What can we do to make this happen?
Now, as I said before, if we earn the trust of the residents and if we can be transparent and if we can be working with the residents, saying that we have exhausted all avenues, now without cutting the public safety services it’s going to be hard to manage, we definitely have to go back to the residents and ask for more increases in our revenue streams.
And that is the only way I can see that we can provide better services to the growing Folsom and at the same time maintain the services to the existing neighborhoods as well.
Q: Housing remains one of the more difficult issues facing California cities. Within the authority Folsom still has under state law, what kind of housing growth do you believe is appropriate for Folsom? Do you believe the city currently has the right balance of apartments, higher-density housing and single-family neighborhoods? And where should future housing be concentrated?
Nagendra: Another excellent question. And just looking through Folsom as a city geographically, we are landlocked from three sides. There is no place that we could continue to grow, whether east, west or north. The only place that, if at all we decide to grow, is going to be south of 50.
And currently, we are several thousand units in low-income housing. We’re not able to meet the requirements. I believe the number given to us was around 2,300 to 2,500 units of low-income housing is something that we still have to meet.
We are able to barely meet on the higher-income side, but the medium-income side, we’re still short of that.
My concern is that if we are not paying attention to this and if we’re not taking proper action, then the state may come and stop certain funding. The state may come and start taking over this type of system.
So what I want to focus on is that as Folsom is growing, as Folsom housing is becoming million-dollar to, you know, million-and-a-half-dollar homes, we do want to take care of the people who work in Folsom.
The younger people who work in retail, younger people who work in restaurants, they can’t afford to live here with that kind of salary.
So we want to be able to make sure that we have the right square footage and the right amount of housing which is closer to transit facilities and which is closer to where public transportation is available, and also closer to retail so that they don’t have to, you know, think about putting gas in the car or can walk to the grocery store.
So I will support the high-density residential to meet these state mandates closer to transit and where the public transportation systems are available, with already existing infrastructure.
Q: Folsom residents value the city’s parks, trails and open spaces, neighborhoods, and overall sense of community. While issues such as e-bikes, homelessness, code enforcement and neighborhood safety continue to generate concerns, which quality of life issues do you believe require greater attention from City Hall? And what specifically would you do about them?
Nagendra: So, one of the reasons I am running for City Council is to ensure that we maintain or better the quality of life that we currently have.
And with the city’s financial situation, I am deeply concerned that our quality of life may be affected because we are unable to fund or we are unable to take care of or provide the required necessary public safety services or parks and trails maintenance that is absolutely required.
And the reason I moved to Folsom is because of the parks and the trails. You know, back in 2017, I used to run marathons. I always wanted to catch a trail when I leave my house so that I can get the miles that I need for the training, which is something, as we call Folsom “Distinct by Nature,” that’s something that has attracted a lot of people to Folsom.
That open space rule or the policy that we have, 30%, is great. And now, why is it great for me? It’s because, one, I connect the open spaces, parks and trails to the individual well-being. And well-being in a sense with both physically as well as the mental well-being of the individuals.
And we may or may not necessarily quantify how these parks, trails and open spaces are impacting positively the residents, but I can tell you with my experience, it is bringing both the physical, emotional and the mental well-being of our residents.
Now, the cost of maintaining this is going — for example, recently I heard we probably need 45 miles of trails that require an immediate repair, and we have wonderful nonprofits in Folsom that are pitching in to support and maintain this.
But I don’t believe that it is the primary responsibility of the nonprofits to pitch in. Yes, they can supplement or they can add on to what we already do, but we cannot make the nonprofits a primary role to fix the city issues.
I think we need to be taking care of that and then asking for help where we need help from.
So my focus would be to see, are we keeping enough money aside for parks and trails maintenance? Are we keeping enough money aside on a regular basis, or are we even taking the money and paying it somewhere else?
We need to establish a new habit. We need to establish a new mindset that we have to save and we have to keep the money for maintaining the long-term sustainability of this infrastructure.
This infrastructure is important, especially when we go south of 50. When I see a lot of younger families, the kids, they’re going to use parks and trails more than north of 50 because, as with north of 50, as the infrastructure is getting old and aging, even the people are getting older.
And, you know, in my own community, I hardly see kids running around because we’re empty nesters and so on.
So there is that data point I see where we should put more resources in where people can get a maximum benefit of these particular resources that we can work with.
Q: What should Folsom be doing to attract employers, restaurants, retail and other businesses that strengthen the city’s economy and generate revenue? At the same time, what could City Hall do better to support existing locally owned businesses?
Nagendra: Very good. OK, looks like a two-part question. One is how do we bring new businesses, and then how do we support the existing businesses? Great question.
One of the challenges that I see is that not only new businesses, but also new organizations or new companies that want to call Folsom home, we have issues with land. We only can grow so much with the infill development. There’s not much that we could expand to get all these new employers into Folsom.
This is going to be a challenge for us. So we need to do some very, very innovative and creative approaches to coming up with ways of either creating some space and then, you know, selling or advocating for that space based on the existing talent that we currently have in Folsom.
We need to work better with our regional partners. Why is it that Rancho Cordova gets a lot of employers who want to go and build there, and why don’t they want to come to Folsom? This is a question mind-boggling to me, that when I run around in Rancho Cordova, there are so many businesses out there, including probably eight to 10 state agencies and departments that have made their home in Rancho Cordova, but we have lost out on those opportunities as well.
And maybe what we can do as a city is to start looking at taking some risks in these areas because, you know, businesses take risks. If you don’t take a risk in a business, there is no way you can succeed. And if you don’t want to take any risk, basically you’re just staying where you are.
So we may have to start looking at taking some risks and investment opportunities so that eventually it’s going to lead into more employment, more revenues, more tax revenues for the city.
Now, for the existing businesses, I would work with the chamber, which is, for us, the Folsom Chamber has been a conduit for working with the existing businesses, understand their pain points, understand their challenges of doing business locally.
And, you know, my ideal situation is that I want every resident in Folsom to shop locally. And how do we do that? That is the biggest question for us.
Now, most people I see, they go to El Dorado Hills, they go to Roseville and Rocklin. I’m not against El Dorado Hills, not against Roseville or Rocklin, but I think those are the revenues or those are the tax dollars that we could potentially retain within Folsom.
And we need to create those spaces that we see. And whatever we are doing right now, I see it’s not working.
And that’s what I think, is that when you see things are not working, what we do is we change. We change how we do things. And in order to make that happen, you need new blood, a new voice, a new vision and a new way of doing things.
And that’s exactly what I want to bring to Folsom, is the new voice, the new perspective in doing things differently than what we’re doing.
Q: If elected, what would be your three highest priorities during your term? And four years from now, what measurable results should voters use to determine whether you were successful?
Nagendra: Very good. So my first priority is infrastructure. That is something that we are feeling the pain of, lack of infrastructure. I’m going to be focusing on infrastructure as a general priority for me.
And my second priority is public safety, making sure that every resident feels safe. And that is going to be my second priority.
And the third priority has to do with economic development and then the business community in Folsom itself.
Now, how do I want to be measured based on these places? OK, number one is I have my vision. My vision is that I want every resident to feel safe, valued and included.
Now, at the end of four years, how many people feel safe in the community? That’s the measure of whether my priority of working through public safety has been.
How many people feel that they’re included in the community? I think that is the part of the conversation where, you know, they are able to either pursue business opportunities, work opportunities or even just shopping local. And that’s going to be part of that.
And ultimately, we want to make sure that with District 3 specifically, with so much diversity that’s there, I want to make sure that they all feel valued in this community.
Some of the communities have expressed their experiences with racism, bullying. They’re not feeling really safe, and all of that needs to go away because there is no place in Folsom for that.
So after four years, it comes down to how safe the people are feeling, how valued they feel in their own community, and then how much inclusion that we see in this community.
And if you start seeing a total divide between the south side of 50 and north side of 50, I have to be held accountable for that because my job is to make sure that I understand both communities and do everything in the power of the City Council member to bring the communities together, to bring opportunities for each community to integrate and to bring communities together so that we talk about inclusion and not just assimilation and integration as a whole.
That’s how I look at it.
I also want to look at it from the public safety point of view, that the firefighters and the police and the emergency services, they feel that they got the resources they need.
They may not get everything they want, but the needed resources to keep these communities and the families safe, and that’s what the goal is. And then they feel that they got the adequate support during these four years and then they continue to support me into the future.
So that’s the measure of the success that I see myself.
Q: In closing, is there an important issue facing Folsom that we haven’t asked you about or something about your candidacy that you want voters to know? This is also your opportunity to discuss your qualifications, endorsements or community support, and to tell voters why you believe you are the best choice to represent your district on the Folsom City Council.
Nagendra: Folsom District 3 has a very clear choice in front of you: more of the same or a new voice. What we have tried for the last eight years has not worked, and if it had worked, I would not be running for this election.
As someone who has the engineering background and also worked in infrastructure, it is my experience that is going to be important and critical for the success.
I bring in 35 years of experience in engineering and leadership. What does that really mean, 35 years of experience? It’s not just a number. What it means is what I learned and what I mastered during these 35 years of experience.
So I want to talk about a few things.
Number one, in 35 years of experience, I know how to lead. I know how to lead change. I know how to manage change, whether it is organization or the team or the community or the groups.
And the second is that as I have survived 35 years in a leadership role, it is because I have the ability to create a vision. I have the ability to communicate that vision, and I have the ability to execute to that vision.
And these three different distinct experiences are extremely important as we call ourselves the leaders.
And third, most importantly, with these 35 years of experience, I worked with diverse communities. I work with diverse interests, and what I’ve learned is how to bring everyone together.
How to bring everyone together so that we can focus on what the issue is. We can focus on what the cause is that we are all fighting for, and we can focus on one destination that we all want to go.
That’s exactly what I have done. And in testament to this, recently the Sacramento Bee has honored me as a 2026 Changemaker, out of the top 20 in this region from the Asian communities. And I’m very, very honored to be receiving that award, which is a testament to my three decades of service professionally and also 15-plus years of community leadership roles that I played in making those changes in our community.
And so, again, the choice is clear. It’s more of the same or a new voice. And I want to be your voice. I want to represent all of you and to make sure that the future of Folsom is strong. And I need your support.
Copyright © 2026, Folsom Times, a digital product of All Town Media LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
