Recreation subsidies, zoo funding, infrastructure needs and long-term liabilities emerge as key discussion points during opening budget review
A $307.7 million spending plan for the coming fiscal year received its first public airing Monday night, as the Folsom City Council dug into a proposed budget that holds the line on most services, sets aside $925,000 for long-deferred trail repairs, and launches an ambitious effort to reexamine nearly every recreation program the city offers through the lens of cost recovery.
The budget introduction, which requires no formal vote until June, represented the opening chapter of what city leaders described as an uncomfortable but necessary community conversation. While General Fund revenues are projected to narrowly outpace operating expenditures by about $51,000, City Manager Bryan Whitemyer warned that the city’s aging infrastructure — from parks and trails to the aquatic center and City Hall — will demand far more investment than current revenue streams can support unless trade-offs are made.
“Staff’s recommended budget shows operating expenses slightly below our projected revenues, which is good,” Whitemyer said. “But we also have had conversations about our assets and the need over time to invest more into those assets. … Are there programs that we may be subsidizing through general fund dollars that would be better to stop doing so that we could then invest those funds into the actual physical asset? One of the things that I would contend is we’re at risk. If we choose to continue to offer some of those services, you can ultimately be heading towards a decision point where you’ve eliminated both the service and the asset.”
The proposed General Fund budget projects $118.3 million in revenues and another $6 million in transfers-in for total estimated resources of $124.35 million. Proposed expenditures total $123.4 million, with another $880,468 in transfers-out, leaving the spending plan narrowly balanced entering the new fiscal year.
The proposed budget also covers the City of Folsom, the Successor Agency, the Folsom Public Financing Authority and the Folsom Ranch Public Financing Authority for the fiscal year running from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
The unassigned fund balance would remain at roughly $25 million, maintaining the council’s 20% reserve policy.
About half of the city’s total $307.7 million budget flows through enterprise funds for water, wastewater and solid waste operations, while the capital improvement plan carves out funding for projects ranging from Jackrabbit Hill Park to bridge maintenance and the Empire Ranch Road interchange.
One of the largest discussions Monday centered on the Parks and Recreation Department, which has undertaken a sweeping program-by-program analysis of what every class, league, rental and swim meet costs the city — and how much of those expenses are recovered through user fees.
The department’s overarching goal, Parks and Recreation Director Kelly Gonzalez told the council, is to shift more general fund dollars toward park and facility maintenance, an area she said has been underfunded for years.
“We have not done maintenance that we should have for the last 15 to 20 years,” Gonzalez said. “We have lots of work to do in our parks and our trails. We’ve started, thanks to our city manager, for the first time. We actually have funds so that we can start to try to start maintaining our assets, which is so important to our community and our community identity.”
To support that effort, the department increased its General Fund support for facility and park maintenance from 47% to 52% of its total budget. It also eliminated several positions over the past year, including a skate park attendant, an art gallery curator and a full-time recreation coordinator, while reducing hours at several facilities. An updated fee schedule, the city’s first comprehensive recreation fee review since 2011, took effect in January 2025 and is expected to be revisited again in January 2027.
Tom Hellman, the city’s recreation and community services manager, walked the council through a detailed breakdown of recreation spending and subsidy levels. The analysis showed major differences in how heavily programs rely on taxpayer support.
The city’s C Squad swim school, for example, operates at 96% cost recovery due to high participation levels, while the overall aquatic center runs at 54% recovery — a figure Hellman said is comparable to similar facilities, including Roseville’s aquatic center.
Winter operations at the 50-meter pool became a major point of discussion. With roughly 55,000 programming hours annually but no revenue generated during overnight filtration cycles, the aquatic center required a $1.1 million city subsidy last year. Whitemyer questioned whether the city should continue subsidizing year-round competitive swim operations that drive up utility and maintenance costs.
“The question was brought up: Should the city subsidize programs during the winter for competitive sports?” Whitemyer said. “That’s something that’s different. … Most cities that I’ve been in, you shut the pool down. It operates from May to August, and then you shut it down. You pay the nominal cost to keep it running. But just the heating and everything that goes with it, the wear and tear on our pumps and all those facilities is actually problematic unless there’s appropriate revenue to cover those costs.”
Community sports programs fared better, with a $372,000 subsidy and comparatively strong cost recovery levels. Community and cultural services — including the Gallery at 48 Natoma, city events and nonprofit contracts — required more than $1.1 million in public support.
The department now aims to increase overall recreation cost recovery from 64% to 70% over the next two to three years, a move staff estimates would reduce city subsidies by roughly $800,000.
To guide those decisions, staff is developing a new financial sustainability policy that categorizes services based on public benefit. Open-access amenities like parks and trails would continue receiving heavy subsidy support, while specialized programs such as adult classes, competitive sports and facility rentals would move closer toward full cost recovery.
“Right now, our cost recovery policy is nearly 20 years old. It is outdated, and I don’t believe it aligns with our values as a department or a city,” said Jamison Larson, a senior management analyst who helped compile the data.
Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbough focused much of her attention on the growing subsidy required to operate the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary. The proposed budget allocates $2.8 million for zoo operations, an increase of $267,000 over the prior year, while zoo-generated revenue remains around $1 million annually.
That leaves roughly $1.8 million covered by the General Fund, a figure that has steadily climbed since 2020.
“Last year and the year before, we were pretty clear that we wanted to see that gap of what the general fund is subsidizing decrease, not increase,” Rohrbough said. “I’m comfortable supporting the zoo and subsidizing the zoo at some level. If we continue on this trend, we’re gonna be quickly at $3 million with probably revenue staying at $1 million. So we’re already at almost $1.8 million that the general fund is subsidizing the zoo. And I just can’t support a budget that’s gonna increase this by $260,000.”
Rohrbough stopped short of threatening opposition to the overall budget but made clear she expects staff to develop a long-term strategy to slow the subsidy growth. Gonzalez noted the department has already increased zoo admission fees and is partnering with the Friends of the Folsom Zoo on fundraising efforts for a veterinary trailer and updated signage.
Mayor Justin Raithel and Councilmember Sarah Aquino also raised concerns about the city’s long-term pension and retiree health obligations, pressing staff for greater transparency on unfunded liabilities.
Raithel pointed to a planned $500,000 transfer into the retiree health trust fund but said the city still faces a substantial long-term debt burden that deserves broader public discussion.
“Other municipalities and counties have set aside more money and increased their funding ratio over the years, whereas we have not,” Raithel said. “We do need to acknowledge that there is a significant debt burden that the city of Folsom has on the books. And that should be part of what we’re discussing with the community.”
Aquino noted the city is nearing payoff of the debt associated with the City Hall complex and suggested applying those future freed-up dollars toward the city’s next-smallest liability in a “debt snowball” strategy. Raithel cautioned that the same future revenue is often targeted for restoring services previously reduced or eliminated during tighter budget years.
The council also revisited staffing discussions surrounding the potential return of a fifth fire engine, a topic tied closely to the city’s rollout of single-role paramedics and future ambulance cost recovery improvements.
Whitemyer said the proposed budget does not yet account for anticipated savings tied to the transition and advised council members to wait for several months of operational data before committing to expanded staffing.
“I know it’s a priority for me and for Chief Solak to get that engine back up ASAP. We’re gonna do everything in our power to do so,” Whitemyer said. “In some of the ways, that’s why we’re looking at these rec programs. … It’s not all gonna hinge on the single-role paramedic. It actually hinges on this body deciding on, hey, do we wanna reduce subsidies somewhere else?”
Council members, several of whom acknowledged they were still working through the more than 500-page budget document, agreed to submit additional questions to Whitemyer by email. Staff will compile responses ahead of a public hearing scheduled for June 9, when the council could formally adopt the budget. If additional deliberation is needed, the hearing can continue June 23 ahead of the city’s June 30 budget deadline.
Councilmember Barbara Leary drew smiles by all near the end of the nearly two-hour discussion as she summed up the challenge ahead with the multi page budget under review.
“I’m still working my way through the book, but I’ve only got about 10% of it memorized,” Leary said. “I anticipate having more questions, and it would be nice if all of the council members could submit questions so we could all learn from each other’s rather than asking the same thing repeatedly of staff.”
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.
