The Folsom City Council voted Tuesday night to place three charter amendment measures on the November 2026 ballot, asking voters to decide whether to change how the city attorney is appointed, allow boards and commissions to receive decision-making authority, and increase campaign contribution limits.
The council approved the ballot measures as part of a slate of election-related items during its July 14 meeting. A resolution formally calling the Nov. 3 general municipal election was also adopted, consolidating the local election with the statewide contest. Sacramento County will administer the consolidated election, and the resolution establishes policies for candidate statements in the voter information guide. Several City Council seats representing the city’s districts will appear on the ballot as part of the city’s staggered four-year election cycle.
City Attorney Appointment
The first measure, which passed on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Sarah Aquino dissenting, proposes amending Section 4.03 of the city charter to have the city attorney appointed by and report directly to the City Council rather than the city manager.
The ballot question voters will consider reads: “Shall the measure amending the adopted charter of the City of Folsom to have the City Council appoint and direct the City Attorney and to make related operational changes be adopted?”
The amendment includes language allowing the council to determine whether to hire an employee or contract for legal services, preserving flexibility for future councils on how to structure the position.
City staff emphasized that the change would bring Folsom in line with the overwhelming majority of California municipalities. Of the state’s 482 incorporated cities, about 469 have city attorneys appointed by their city councils, though practices vary on whether those attorneys are in-house employees or contracted through outside firms. That figure represents roughly 97 percent of all cities in the state.
“In many ways, the change that’s being made, I would argue, helps resolve some of the concerns that actually have been brought up,” Whitemyer said, responding to public comments about past legal disputes involving the city. He added that cities of Folsom’s size commonly employ their city attorneys as in-house staff rather than contracting the services out.
The proposal originated from the city’s Charter Review Committee, which Councilmember Sarah Aquino Kozlowski noted had unanimously supported the change after extensive deliberation. Kozlowski said she was surprised to learn during the committee process that only two other cities in California have city attorneys who do not work directly for the City Council.
“There’s a reason that city councils direct and appoint their city attorney,” Kozlowski said.
The measure is expected to cost between $12,000 and $55,000 to place on the ballot, a figure raised by local attorney Scott Rafferty during public comment. Rafferty, who has represented plaintiffs in California Voting Rights Act litigation against the city, raised concerns about past legal controversies involving the city attorney’s office but did not oppose the measure outright. He referenced a lawsuit against former council candidate Kerry Howell that was dismissed, as well as other election-related issues.
“I think there’s real soul searching that I hope is going on someplace about what happened to Kerry Howell because I really felt that was a really, really bad course of action,” Rafferty said. “So you do need to look at the relationship with the city attorney.”
Dierking noted that Section 4.03(c) of the proposed amendment allows the council the option to contract for legal services rather than maintaining an in-house attorney, should future councils prefer that arrangement.
Boards and Commissions Authority
The second measure, also passed 4-1 with Councilmember Sarah Aquino dissenting, asks voters to amend Section 4.07 of the charter to clarify that the City Council may grant decision-making authority to boards and commissions by ordinance.
Currently, the charter states that all boards and commissions serve only in an advisory capacity to the council, meaning their recommendations carry no binding authority. The proposed amendment would remove that language, giving the council flexibility to delegate certain decision-making powers when appropriate without requiring a separate charter amendment for each specific case.
The ballot question will ask: “Shall the measure amending the adopted charter of the City of Folsom to confirm the City Council may grant decision-making authority to boards and commissions by ordinance be adopted?”
Campaign Contribution Limits
The third measure drew the most discussion among council members and would more than triple the individual campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election for Folsom City Council races.
The ballot question will ask: “Shall the measure increasing the campaign contribution limit from $150 to $500 per donor per election on campaigns for Folsom City Council be adopted?”
The measure also passed 4-1 with Councilmember Sarah Aquino dissenting.
Council members framed the increase as a necessary step to level the playing field for candidates facing substantial independent expenditures from political action committees and other outside organizations that are not subject to the same contribution limits.
Leary, who was elected in 2024, shared her personal experience to illustrate the disparity. She said she raised approximately $20,000 under the $150 limit while her opponent benefited from more than $90,000 in independent expenditures from various political action committees.
“Having the ability to raise more than $150 a shot, which is gonna be rare that people pay that, but it will give some people who want to help the ability to do so can put us on a more even playing ground with other candidates who are well supported by various PACs throughout the region,” Leary said.
She noted that candidates cannot coordinate with independent expenditure committees, but the spending nonetheless creates a significant financial imbalance in local races.
Leary also referenced the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, saying it “has caused election donations to go up from a tilted number of people within our region.” She argued that increasing the individual contribution limit “is fair to give the residents and the candidates a shot at raising some more money on their own.”
Rafferty, the only member of the public to speak on the item, questioned the timing and scale of the increase. He noted that one of the benefits of district-based elections is typically lower campaign costs since candidates can focus on smaller geographic areas rather than campaigning citywide, which should reduce the need for larger contributions.
“It just puzzles me that you would, in these times, more than triple that. It seems to give an undue advantage to the wealthy,” Rafferty said.
He also pointed out that the measure itself would cost the city approximately $12,000 just to place the question on the ballot.
“And it also is gonna cost, even if this is an incremental ballot question, it’s gonna cost the city $12,000 just to ask the question. So I just don’t think this is necessarily something that you need to do,” Rafferty said.
The three measures will appear before Folsom voters in the consolidated general municipal election on Nov. 3, 2026. The council’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 11 following the council’s summer recess.
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.
