Tuesday night topic debated timing, fiscal priorities, transparency and future accessibility of council roles
Folsom City Council advanced a proposal Tuesday night to increase compensation for future elected officials, approving the first reading of an ordinance in a split 3–2 vote following discussion that highlighted divisions over timing, fiscal priorities and the evolving demands of public service.
The ordinance, which would amend the municipal code governing council salaries, represents the first step in the approval process and now advances to a second reading at a future meeting. Even if ultimately adopted, the proposed increase would not take effect immediately and would instead apply after the next election cycle — a point emphasized during the discussion.
The motion to approve Ordinance No. 1366 on first reading passed with Councilmembers Anna Rohrbough and Mike Kozlowski and Mayor Justin Raithel voting in favor, while Councilmembers Barbara Leary and Sarah Aquino voted in opposition.
At the center of the proposal is a recommendation to reset council compensation using updated benchmarks tied to California Senate Bill 329, which took effect Jan. 1, 2024, and expanded allowable pay ranges for city council members in general law cities based on population tiers.
Although Folsom is a charter city and is not required to follow SB 329, city staff presented the law as a benchmark that has influenced compensation adjustments across California, including in neighboring jurisdictions.
Under SB 329, cities with populations between 75,001 and 150,000 residents — a category that includes Folsom — may compensate council members up to $1,900 per month, or $22,800 annually. Larger cities are allowed higher compensation levels based on population thresholds.
Presently, Folsom Council members are currently receiving approximately $600 per month, or $7,200 annually, while the mayor receives approximately $700 per month. The proposal before the council would increase council compensation to $1,900 per month, aligning with the maximum level outlined under SB 329 for cities of similar size.
In presenting the item, City Manager Bryan Whitemyer provided additional historical context, noting that council compensation has remained largely unchanged for decades. In 1990, council members received $400 per month, with an additional $100 for the mayor. The most recent adjustment came in 2018, when compensation was increased to the current level of $600 per month.
Whitemyer also outlined the scope of responsibilities overseen by the Folsom City Council, describing the city as a full-service municipality responsible for a wide range of operations that in many communities are handled by separate agencies.
Those services include police, fire and emergency medical services, animal control, water and sewer systems, solid waste, public works infrastructure, parks and recreation, the city zoo, and both community and economic development functions.
“One of the things that I have seen… regardless of the city, I’ve been able to see the difficult job that our council members have,” Whitemyer said, noting that many councilmembers use their compensation to support civic engagement, attend community events and contribute to local organizations.
He added that the scope and complexity of the role often requires ongoing involvement beyond scheduled council meetings, including preparation, regional coordination and engagement with residents.
Mayor Justin Raithel, who requested the item be placed on the agenda, framed the proposal as an investment in the city’s long-term governance.
“I think our city council are our best advocates for the city — locally, regionally, statewide, and nationally,” Raithel said during the discussion.
Raithel described the potential role of councilmembers in economic development, regional coordination and securing outside funding, and said the discussion is focused on future councils rather than current officeholders.
“This doesn’t go into effect now,” he said. “We’re talking about who we want to step up and run for city council in the future.”
Councilmembers opposing the measure raised concerns about timing, structure and public perception.
Councilmember Barbara Leary focused in part on how compensation is presented to the public, noting that the base salary figure does not fully reflect the broader compensation package.
She outlined additional elements that contribute to total compensation, including $100 payments twice monthly tied to public agency roles, a $50 monthly technology allowance, approximately $6,600 annually for travel and education, retirement contributions through PERS estimated at about $48 per month, and eligibility for medical, dental and vision benefits.
“It doesn’t show the big picture,” Leary said.
While she supported bringing the item forward for discussion, Leary ultimately opposed the increase, citing fiscal conditions.
“It feels like a very wrong time,” she said, adding that she would prefer to revisit the issue after ensuring public safety services are fully supported.
Councilmember Sarah Aquino also opposed the measure, raising concerns about how the proposal was introduced and the size of the increase.
“This was a surprise to see on the agenda,” Aquino said, questioning why the item was presented as a fully drafted ordinance rather than as a discussion item.
She also questioned whether the proposed amount would replace or be added to existing stipends and expressed concern about public perception.
“I don’t support an increase,” Aquino said. “I think $600 to $1,900 is much too large of an increase. We have much bigger things to focus on.”
Councilmember Mike Kozlowski supported the proposal, responding to arguments about delaying action.
“The easiest rhetorical flourish on earth is to say the time is not right,” Kozlowski said. “But don’t set unmeasurable targets about when the time will be right.”
Kozlowski said the discussion should focus on whether current compensation is appropriate given the responsibilities of the role. He also stated that while he supported the ordinance, he would personally decline any pay increase during his time on the council.
Councilmember Anna Rohrbough also supported the proposal, emphasizing that the discussion is focused on the future structure of the council.
“This discussion is not about the current council,” Rohrbough said. “It’s about the expectations of the role and ensuring service on this council remains realistic and accessible.”
Rohrbough described the role as involving housing policy, infrastructure planning, public safety coordination, regional partnerships and constituent engagement, and said compensation can influence who is able to serve.
“There is no good time,” she said, adding that scrutiny would exist regardless of financial conditions.
Public comment during the meeting reflected similar divisions.
Some speakers opposed the increase, citing the city’s structural deficit and recent budget decisions, including the removal of a fire engine from service, as reasons to delay action.
“Public service is a choice not driven by financial gain,” said Jag Nagendra, who urged the council to defer the proposal. He also said the issue was less about the dollar amount and more about leadership optics during a time of fiscal uncertainty.
Others supported the increase, pointing to the time demands of council service.
Rosario Rodriguez, now a county supervisor and former Folsom councilmember, described the role as requiring a workload comparable to part-time or full-time employment. She said that during her time in office, her compensation equated to approximately $6.92 per hour as a councilmember and $3.94 per hour as mayor.
Rodriguez also described reviewing agenda materials, attending regional meetings and conferences, and maintaining ongoing communication with residents.
“Compensation affects who is able to serve,” Rodriguez said, calling the proposed increase fair and reasonable.
Additional speakers raised concerns about timing and priorities.
“Part of balancing the budget was cutting a fire engine,” Bill Turner said. “The priority should be putting that engine back in service before increasing salary.”
Public comment reflected a divide between concerns over fiscal timing and support for aligning compensation with the scope of the role.
The discussion followed several days of community conversation across social media platforms, where residents debated both the timing of the proposal and the broader question of council compensation. The ordinance should now move forward to a second reading with full details at a future meeting before any final adoption.
Copyright © 2025, 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.
