City attorney oversight, campaign finance limits and commission authority measures advance from first public hearing
After a lengthy public hearing before a nearly standing-room-only crowd Tuesday night, the Folsom City Council narrowed a sweeping package of proposed city charter amendments down to three remaining areas for continued discussion, while shelving several other recommendations involving term limits, council pay adjustments, election language and voter approval requirements tied to outsourcing certain city services.
The chamber was filled with residents occupying nearly every seat and lining the walls as the council debated recommendations submitted by the city’s 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. The proposals touched on a broad range of governance issues, including campaign contribution limits, city attorney oversight, council compensation, election language, boards and commissions authority, and whether the city should maintain voter approval requirements before contracting or franchising certain municipal services to private entities.
City Manager Bryan Whitemyer opened the presentation by explaining the role and purpose of a charter city and the legal process required to amend the document.
“A city charter is the foundational governing document of a municipality, essentially its local constitution,” Whitemyer said. “It can only be amended by a vote of the people.”
Folsom adopted its charter in 1990, and any amendments ultimately advanced by the council would require voter approval before taking effect.
Earlier Tuesday, during the public portion of Choose Folsom’s monthly Chamber of Commerce board meeting where he appeared as guest speaker, Mayor Justin Raithel discussed several of the proposed charter amendments that later became the central focus of Tuesday night’s council hearing. During those earlier remarks, Raithel indicated the council would likely reduce the number of measures moving forward this election cycle.
“We’re not going to put eight recommendations on the ballot,” Raithel said. “We have set aside in the budget to put three recommendations on the ballot this year.”
Raithel also emphasized that not every charter issue under discussion necessarily needed to move forward immediately.
“We don’t have to put everything on in 2026,” he said. “We could put things on in 2028.”
The most heavily debated issue of the night involved a proposal concerning whether voters should continue having final approval authority before the city can outsource or franchise certain municipal services to private companies.
Under Folsom’s current charter, voter approval is required before any city-owned utility or enterprise can be sold, leased, contracted to or franchised to a nongovernmental entity. Much of Tuesday’s discussion centered around solid waste collection and whether future garbage service arrangements should continue requiring direct voter approval before the city could pursue a private operator.
The proposed amendment would have removed the voter approval requirement while still requiring compliance with other existing charter procedures.
Raithel said solid waste operations were one of the primary reasons the committee revisited the charter language during its review process.
“The main focus, I think, was very clear in the Charter Review Commission… solid waste is really our focus,” Raithel said.
He also described the current restrictions involving private service contracts.
“Our city charter says that we will go to a vote of the people in order to franchise out any service to a private entity,” Raithel said. “If we contract to another government agency, we don’t require charter review — but to go to a private entity we do.”
During his earlier remarks Tuesday, Raithel also pointed to regional garbage rate comparisons as part of the broader discussion surrounding solid waste operations.
“Our solid waste rates are on average 50% higher than our neighbors,” Raithel said. “Roseville has remarkably lower solid waste rates than we do.”
Raithel further argued the city currently lacks financial flexibility available to neighboring cities operating under franchise arrangements.
“We don’t get a seven-figure franchise fee,” he said. “It’s typically about 8% to 10% that could go back into our general fund.”
During the council hearing later that evening, Raithel reiterated that the proposal was ultimately about flexibility rather than removing voters from the process entirely.
“It’s asking whether voters want to give the Council flexibility,” Raithel said. “The ultimate decision-makers will be the voters.”
Committee Chair Bill Romanelli said the charter review committee debated the issue extensively throughout five public meetings held between March and May.
“Majority of public commenters felt voters should not be cut out,” Romanelli said. “A slim majority of the committee felt the council should have more flexibility.”
Romanelli said one concern raised during committee deliberations was that private firms potentially interested in bidding on future service agreements “may not submit bids if final agreement depends on a public vote.”
Public comment at Tuesday night’s hearing centered overwhelmingly on concerns surrounding possible privatization of city services, particularly solid waste collection.
Several speakers urged the council to preserve direct voter oversight before allowing outsourcing or franchising of municipal operations. Others referenced garbage collection costs and questioned whether removing voter approval protections would weaken public accountability or reduce transparency in future service decisions.
Councilmember Sarah Aquino acknowledged residents’ concerns about garbage collection rates while discussing the proposal.
“We are the highest in the region,” Aquino said. “I think there’s opportunity to look at efficiencies.”
Councilmember Barbara Leary said decisions involving outsourcing city services warranted continued direct voter participation.
“To outsource solid waste or any other service … is a really big deal, and I think that does warrant the public weighing in,” Leary said.
She later added that charter protections remain important because “the public doesn’t always show up. The public doesn’t read the agendas every meeting.”
Following the discussion, the council unanimously voted to remove the proposal from further consideration, prompting applause from several audience members inside council chambers.
The council also voted to remove several other proposed charter amendments from further consideration Tuesday night.
One of those proposals would have reduced city council term limits from four consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive four-year terms, lowering the maximum continuous service period from 16 years to 12 years before a required break in service.
The charter review committee had recommended the change as a way to balance institutional knowledge with turnover and fresh perspectives in city leadership. The amendment would have applied prospectively beginning with councilmembers elected after the November 2026 election.
Leary said she did not support reopening the issue of term limits.
“The average number of terms people serve is well under three terms,” she said.
Another proposal removed from consideration would have established automatic annual council salary adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index, capped at 3 percent annually.
The charter review committee argued the proposal would help avoid situations where council compensation significantly lags behind neighboring jurisdictions because elected officials may be reluctant to publicly vote for raises during difficult economic periods or politically sensitive budget discussions.
No councilmember expressed support Tuesday night for embedding automatic salary increases directly into the city charter. The council also voted to remove from consideration proposed cleanup language deleting outdated references to “at-large” elections from the charter, along with obsolete transition provisions dating back to the charter’s original adoption in 1990.
Ballot costs and administrative workload also became part of the discussion as councilmembers worked through which measures would continue advancing.
Whitemyer said Sacramento County charges approximately $83,000 for the first ballot measure and about $10,700 for each additional measure placed before voters.
“There is substantial public dialogue that’s going to take place before it even gets to the voters,” Whitemyer said.
Vice Mayor Anna Rohrbough referenced the amount of staff work already invested in the process while supporting efforts to narrow the number of measures advancing.
“We’re being very respectful of staff’s time and all the time they’ve put into this already,” Rohrbough said.
Following the votes narrowing the proposals, the council unanimously adopted a resolution formally receiving the charter review committee’s report and dissolving the ad hoc committee itself.
Three issues remain under consideration and are expected to return for additional public hearings in coming meetings.
One of the remaining proposals would change how the city appoints and oversees its attorney. Under Folsom’s current charter, the city manager appoints the city attorney. The proposed amendment would shift that authority directly to the City Council.
Romanelli said the recommendation received unanimous support from the charter review committee.
“Folsom is one of only two cities in California where the city manager appoints the city attorney,” Romanelli said.
During council discussion, members questioned how a charter amendment could potentially affect the city’s ongoing recruitment process for a permanent city attorney.
City staff explained that the council already approves the city attorney’s employment contract and clarified that any charter amendment changing the reporting structure would still require voter approval before taking effect.
Staff also clarified during the discussion that the city attorney’s client is legally the city itself as an entity, acting through the elected City Council.
Council members did not move to remove the proposal from consideration, allowing it to continue advancing toward future hearings and possible ballot placement.
Raithel said the proposal centers on accountability and legal independence.
“The city manager ends up being the client, and it should be the council that’s the client,” Raithel said. “This, to me, is the most important change we can make.”
Another proposal still under consideration would amend charter language governing boards and commissions.
Currently, the charter states all city boards and commissions are “only advisory” to the council. The proposed amendment would remove that restriction and potentially allow future councils to delegate specific authority or decision-making powers to commissions through ordinances if desired.
Supporters of the amendment argued it would provide future flexibility for governance structures without requiring additional charter amendments every time the city wished to modify responsibilities assigned to commissions or advisory bodies.
The third remaining proposal involves campaign contribution limits for local elections.
The charter review committee recommended increasing Folsom’s current campaign contribution cap from $150 to $750 per contributor, arguing the city’s current limit is substantially lower than neighboring jurisdictions and no longer reflects the realities of modern campaigning.
Raithel noted the issue has previously appeared before voters.
“Back in 2018 it was on the ballot and lost by a couple percent,” he said. “After Citizens United changed the landscape with PAC spending, that really changed the discussion.”
Tuesday’s actions significantly narrowed the scope of what could ultimately appear before voters in November, leaving the council focused primarily on governance structure and campaign finance issues rather than broader operational changes tied to city services.
The council is scheduled to revisit the remaining charter proposals May 26, with additional hearings expected in June if necessary. The deadline to place measures on the November ballot is July 14.
Copyright © 2026, Folsom Times, a digital product of All Town Media LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this published article may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
