The City convened a committee to review the City’s Charter. This document essentially serves as our Constitution. The reason given for embarking on this effort was to “clean up” the document and ensure that the City is operating in accordance with all relevant State Laws. The committee was comprised of five individuals, each of whom was appointed by a Council Member, along with the Mayor, Vice Mayor and the City Manager, who was a non-voting member.
The Charter was last reviewed approximately 20 years ago, at my request, with the consensus of my colleagues on the City Council at that time. The makeup of that committee was larger, the public was welcome to attend the meetings, and NO Council members served on the committee. The recommended changes to the Charter were then forwarded to the City Council, which discussed each recommendation during a regularly scheduled Council Meeting before deciding what recommendations, if any, would be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide.
In this iteration of the review, both the Mayor and Vice Mayor served as voting members of the committee and public input was not encouraged. In fact, I have been informed that the Mayor was not pleased at the number of residents who attended the meeting that was first attended by members of the public and that attendees suggested there was a lack of transparency in the manner that the committee meetings were conducted.
Given that both the Mayor and Vice Mayor would participate in the decision of what, if any, changes would be put on the ballot for residents to decide, as that would be an action by the five Council Members, why did they feel compelled to guide the process as voting members of the committee, and why was the public not encouraged to attend the meetings?
This edition of the Charter Review appears to have been fast-tracked, with little public input and at the same time that three of the five Council Members voted to triple their own salaries and give our new City Manager a significant salary increase, despite his already having received a cost-of-living increase.
So, let’s move on to what changes to the Charter are being proposed.
Section 2.01 Removal of language related to at-large election of Council Members: This would actually qualify as cleanup language, based upon interpretation of the Voting Rights Act — notwithstanding recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a legal settlement the City entered into to avoid the expense of a trial in which the City was unlikely to prevail. If there is legal preference to back it up, I would rather have all Council Members accountable to all of our residents.
Section 2.01(E) Term Limits: Reduce from four terms to three. Why? The residents voted on this a few years ago. I do not know the rationale behind this and would be happy to point out that this is not typical for other cities in the region.
One of the biggest problems we have right now, in my opinion, is a lack of historical knowledge on both the Council and City Staff, with regard to both City issues as well as regional issues important for the regional boards the Council Members sit on. Yes, I served six terms on City Council and four years on the Planning Commission before that. That historical knowledge is gone and that is exactly why I am writing this. If you do not know or remember the history, you are destined to repeat it.
Section 2.06 Council Salaries: Despite the rhetoric given during the Council meetings on this subject, salary is not a deterrent to attracting candidates. Serving on City Council is not a job, it is a passion and a calling to serve the community.
They just tripled their salaries during a time of economic instability. Interesting to note that, of the three who supported this increase, one does not have a job, one works as a “consultant” and the other would benefit from the increase in retirement pay from the Council. The first two would need to be re-elected to qualify for that retirement pay.
There is no good reason for this dramatic increase. When I served on the Council, in times of economic stress, unions renegotiated their contracts and executives received NO pay raises in order to protect the jobs of their colleagues and the City’s bottom line.
Section 2.07 Franchise Authority: Allows the City to contract out for City services WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE RESIDENTS!
They are looking for ways to outsource solid waste. The City Manager has said that this is because of the state requirement to convert to electric vehicles. Well, these vehicles do not yet exist. So, it is likely this requirement will be changed by the state.
Our solid waste fees are higher than others, yes, because we are being charged every month for a state service we are not using. So, get rid of the $9 monthly fee. Do you think the service levels will remain the same? They will NOT. When the service does not meet the expectations of our residents, you will be told it is beyond their control and you should call them — whoever “them” is.
They are looking at privatizing the zoo. Really? That is one of Folsom’s jewels and a major boon for tourism and the education of your children. They also want to turn over many aspects of Parks and Recreation — same comment.
We tried outsourcing the scheduling of City facilities in the past. It did not work and was brought back to Parks and Recreation. The City of Folsom is a government, not a profit center.
And my personal favorite, turning over firefighting to 522, the union that FFD non-management belongs to and is Sac Metro Fire. 522 promises our firefighters higher salaries and claims they can deliver service at lower cost. How can that be?
When I met with the 522 Sac Metro representative several years ago, I said that is a really interesting concept. You should send us a proposal for how you would achieve that, and do not forget to include your proposal to purchase our fire stations, the land they sit on and all of the equipment that the taxpayers in Folsom have already paid for.
He was quite surprised and assumed we would simply turn the ownership over to them. That would be a gift of public funds.
Oh, in case you did not know, Sac Metro is funded by a percentage of property tax in every jurisdiction they control. Would you like to turn over a portion of your property tax to them? Not me.
And to our Folsom 522 members who have already voted overwhelmingly to support this, you will be reassigned DAY 1 to some location where the calls are not 98 percent medical, at least not the medical calls you are accustomed to responding to. If you think Sac Metro is a better organization to work for, I encourage you to apply.
Section 4.03 City Attorney: The City Attorney should represent the Council and the City. Not all of our City Attorneys understood this concept.
Section 4.07 City Boards and Commissions: They should continue to serve as an advisory to the Council. This is an attempt to shirk responsibility and ignores the fact that the Council is aware, or should be, of many other circumstances and financial issues that the Boards and Commissions are NOT aware of, nor are members of the Boards and Commissions elected by the public. The Council Members are.
Section 9.02 Transition from 1990 Charter: This would be cleanup language, as the Charter was adopted in 1990.
Municipal Code — Campaign Contribution Limit Increase: It is proposed that campaign contribution limits be increased from $150 to $750. When candidates were running citywide, not in districts with a much smaller pool of voters, we dealt with limits of $150. Raising the limit to $750 is outrageous and was not supported the last time it was discussed.
I hope my opinions and historical information have been helpful to those who read this far. If these items make it to the ballot in November, I will be voting NO.
Kerri Howell is a longtime Folsom resident who served multiple terms on the Folsom City Council for more than 24 years after first being elected in 1998. She served as the city’s mayor four different times during her tenure as a city leader. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Massachusetts Lowell.
The above commentary was authored by Kerri Howell and submitted to Folsom Times. The views and opinions expressed in community commentary submissions are that of the authors and do not reflect the views and opinions of Folsom Times, its management, staff, stakeholders or advertisers.
Do you have an opinion or a viewpoint?Local residents are welcome to submit their opinion/commentary writings for consideration. All submissions MUST include writers full legal name, address and phone number for verification and legal responsibility of all content submitted. To be considered for publication, all Community Commentary submissions must include a high resolution headshot/portrait of the author with full permission for publication and be submitted tofolsomtimeseditor@gmail.comany submissions sent to other departments will not be forwarded or considered.
All submissions to Folsom Times are subject to guidelines, review and approval by All Town Media. LLC and its legal advisors prior to publication.
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.
