Folsom Council receives charter review report, narrows ballot items after heavy public opposition

The Folsom City Council on May 12 received the ad hoc 2026 charter review committee report and dissolved the committee, sending a narrowed package of items back to staff for further public discussion and potential placement on the November ballot.

The committee forwarded eight recommendations including removing the words "at large" to reflect district elections, reducing consecutive council term limits from four to three terms, adding an annual council salary adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index with a 3% cap, and eliminating the voter approval requirement before a city‑owned utility or enterprise could be sold, leased for more than two years, or franchised to a non‑governmental party. It also recommended changing the appointment of the city attorney from the city manager to the city council, clarifying that the council may set commissions’ powers by ordinance, deleting an obsolete 1990 transition provision, and proposing a change to campaign contribution limits (from $150 to $750 in the municipal code).

Bill Romanelli, chair of the committee, told the council the group voted on many items by narrow margins and sought to balance efficiency, legal clarity and public oversight. "We considered what other jurisdictions have been doing," Romanelli said, describing several recommendations as compromise outcomes produced after public input during the committee meetings.

The public hearing drew about 15–16 speakers. Macy Sherman, a representative for City of Folsom workers (Local 39), told the council the franchise recommendation felt like "a transfer of power from the people of Folsom to the city council," and urged the council not to remove voter approval for major changes to public services. Multiple other residents raised similar concerns, saying privatization risks higher rates, fewer safeguards for local jobs, and reduced accountability.

Council debate following the public comment period focused on narrowness of proposed ballot language, costs of placing measures on the county ballot, and the need for clarity on which services would be affected. Staff and the utilities director clarified that the SB 1383 organics recycling fee (the $9 line item on many utility bills) is not optional and is a compliance cost, a point raised during public questioning about trash rates and electrification costs.

After discussion, the council voted to: receive the committee report and dissolve the ad hoc committee (Resolution No. 11613); remove the committee's proposed term limit reduction and the recommended automatic CPI‑tied council salary adjustments from further consideration; decline to pursue the broader "at large" cleanup and a 1990 transition deletion for budgetary reasons; and reject bringing forward the section that would remove voter approval for franchising city utilities (section 2.07d). The council directed staff to return with additional materials on three items: (1) language to permit the city council to appoint the city attorney, (2) clarifying language on boards and commissions powers, and (3) a separate proposal on campaign contribution limits to be considered as a standalone item.

Mayor Justin Bridal emphasized clarity for voters: "If we were to go to the ballot, it has to be something people can understand — specific, clear, and with the numbers behind it," he said, urging staff to produce a matrix of options and the county cost estimate to place measures on the ballot. Staff estimated the county charge for adding the first ballot measure would be roughly $83,000 and about $10,700 for each additional measure, figures council members cited in weighing how many items to advance.

The council set a schedule for additional hearings with an opportunity for more public input at the May 26 meeting, possible follow‑up on June 9, a final public hearing on June 23, and a July 14 deadline to adopt any ordinance language that would be placed on the ballot.

The action ends the ad hoc committee’s eight‑week review but begins a more focused staff process to prepare voter‑facing language, cost estimates and supporting analyses for the three items the council signaled it wants to explore further.