Folsom council approves pay increase over public objections; vote splits 3-2
Loading...
Summary
After extensive public comment urging restraint, the Folsom City Council adopted Ordinance 1366 and Resolution 11584 to raise council salaries under SB 329; both measures passed on 3-2 votes (Leary and Aquino opposed). Several council members said they would not accept higher pay if serving at the time it takes effect.
The Folsom City Council on April 14 adopted an ordinance and implementing resolution to raise member compensation following earlier council action under new state law. The ordinance (No. 1366) and the resolution (No. 11584) passed after a lengthy public-comment period in which residents urged councilmembers to delay or phase any increase while the city addresses budget shortfalls and service reductions.
Public concern and themes: Dozens of speakers told the council the timing was tone-deaf given staffing constraints in public safety and ongoing fiscal pressures. Speakers repeatedly asked for a phased approach or more data about how the raise would affect next year’s budget. “I urge you to consider a more measured and transparent approach,” one resident told the council during public comment.
Council debate and vote: Councilmembers debated finances and representation. Some members pointed to the midyear budget review that showed improved reserves and argued that modest compensation helps broaden eligibility to serve. Others said the optics were poor and that incremental steps would be wiser. On the ordinance roll call, Councilmembers Leary and Aquino voted No; Rorba, Kozlowski and Bridal voted Yes. The resolution to set the amount passed on the same 3-2 margin. The changes take effect after the next election cycle; several councilmembers stated they would decline the higher salary if they remain on the council when the pay increase starts.
Why it matters: The vote elevates a longstanding local debate — whether higher pay fosters more inclusive candidacies and shared civic leadership or appears self-serving when services are reduced. Council members who supported the raise said the fiscal hit to the general fund is manageable (staff indicated the change would be roughly a $70,000 annual general-fund effect once fully implemented) and that the increase is intended to offset economic barriers that limit who can run for office.
Next steps: City staff will implement the administrative steps to apply the ordinance and resolution as written; several councilmembers asked for future review and greater public communication before any future changes.
