Folsom Council moves forward with review of 3 recommended charter updates

It was a heated and at times emotional scene at the Folsom City Council meeting Tuesday night, as the chamber was packed for a public hearing over recommendations from a committee which called for changes to the city charter. The 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee, which was established in December of last year, conducted a comprehensive review of the City Charter, which is in effect the city's Constitution. The committee's mission was to evaluate the charter and recommend updates and changes for the city council to consider. According to Folsom City Manager Bryan Whitemyer, the last full review of the city's charter was in 2000. It is up to the council to decide which, if any, of those recommendations should be placed on the November ballot for voters to approve. Just the very idea that city officials were pondering changes to the charter triggered heated dialogues on local social media chats, so it was no surprise the city council meeting was packed for the public hearing. Whitemyer said the committee met five times, from March 4 through May 4, and recommended updates to seven sections of the charter and a section of the Folsom Municipal Code. The staff report lists the recommendations as: Section 2.01 - City Council: Address the transition away from at-large elections. Section 2.01(E) - Term limits: Reduce the maximum number of consecutive terms councilmembers may serve, from four 4-year terms to three 4-year terms. Section 2.06 - City Council Compensation and Expenses: Add automatic annual salary adjustments for city council, tied to the Consumer Price Index, with a maximum increase of 3 percent per year. Section 2.07(D) - Restriction on City Utility or Enterprise (franchise authority): Eliminate voter approval requirement before a city-owned utility or enterprise may be sold, leased for more than two years, contracted to or put to franchise to any non-governmental party, to allow the council to franchise or contract for city services without voter approval. Section 4.03 - City Attorney: Change how the city attorney is appointed from the city manager to the city council appointing the individual. Section 4.07 - Boards and Commissions: Strike language that city boards and commissions are only advisory to the council, to allow the council to set the powers and duties of these entities by ordinance. Section 9.02 - Transition of Elected Officials from 1990: Delete due to being obsolete. Folsom Municipal Code 2.48.030 - Campaign contribution limitation: Increase campaign contribution limit in support or position to any candidate from $150 to $750. The council received 14 comments during the public hearing, with a majority being opposed to the recommended change to Section 2.07(D), with one commenter saying it "feels like this is taking power away from the people." Commenters also noted privatizing public services could result in higher rates and decreased quality of service. Other comments noted support for having the council appoint the city attorney, opposition to an automatic salary increase for councilmembers, and in support of the increase to campaign contributions but against the proposed dollar amount. The council then discussed at length what its priorities were in relation to the recommendations and how to proceed. The council expressed no interest in moving forward with adding the term limits and automatic salary increase for council to the ballot. In the end, the council unanimously voted 4-0 to bring three items back for further discussion before deciding if they want to put them on the November ballot. Councilmember Mike Kozlowski was absent. The three items are: Section 4.03 would make the city council responsible for the hiring and oversight of the city attorney rather than giving that responsibility to the city manager. Section 4.07 would remove the language that "All boards and commissions only shall be advisory to the Council" to allow greater flexibility in how commissions and committees operate." Folsom Municipal Code 2.48.030 - To consider an increase in the campaign contribution limit. Councilmember Barbara Leary told The Folsom Telegraph she was ultimately happy to see the community being proactive and engaging in a healthy discussion. "I was pleased to see so many of our residents show up and engage in the decision-making process by listening to the council discussion and expressing their concerns about some of the proposed charter changes," said Leary. "Ultimately, I think the council made the right decisions on each charter change and significantly narrowed the items to be placed on the ballot following a healthy discussion. It is clear that we must continue to be mindful of our processes and seek the best solutions for our city and its residents." The council initially voted for the remaining six recommendations to return to a future meeting with more information but followed that vote with two unanimous votes to reject the recommendations for Sections 2.01 (at-large elections), 9.02 (language from 1990) and 2.07(D) (franchise authority). Following the vote to reject the recommendation for Section 2.07(D), the council chambers erupted in applause. Sections 4.03 and 4.07 and Folsom Municipal Code 2.48.030 will return to a future meeting for further discussion before the decision to put them on the ballot.