By admin 
Folsom voters will decide three ballot measures in November that could reshape city government by changing who oversees the city attorney, expanding the authority of unelected commissions and increasing how much individuals can donate to City Council candidates.
Read more Yolo County agriculture topped $911 million in 2025 as almond values surged
Measures I, J and K were placed on the Nov. 3 ballot after months of debate over proposed changes to the city charter and municipal code.
The proposals originated with Folsom’s 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee, which initially recommended eight amendments. The City Council narrowed the list to three before voting July 14 to place them on the ballot.
The measures also drew scrutiny over election costs. The city estimated it would cost $107,400 to place all three proposals before voters, up from an initial estimate of about $9,000 per measure, according to previous Bee reporting.
Councilmember Sarah Aquino, who is also running for reelection in the city’s 3rd District, cast the lone dissenting vote when the proposals advanced in June, citing the increased election costs.
Each measure would require a simple majority of votes cast to pass.
Here’s what Folsom voters should know.
Where would the measures apply?
All three measures would apply only to the city of Folsom. Measures I and J would amend the city’s charter, which establishes the structure and powers of city government. Measure K would amend the municipal code, which contains local laws and regulations.
What would Measure I change about Folsom’s city attorney?
Measure I would transfer authority to appoint, suspend and remove Folsom’s city attorney from the city manager to the City Council.
Under the existing city charter, the city attorney served as a department head appointed by the city manager. The attorney provided legal advice to the City Council, city manager and department heads, represented the city in legal proceedings and reviewed city contracts.
If Measure I passed, the City Council would appoint and direct the city attorney through an employment agreement. The attorney would serve at the council’s discretion rather than the city manager’s.
The proposal also included procedural protections. The city attorney would be entitled to a public hearing, following at least 10 days of published notice, before the council voted on a removal or suspension. The council also would be prohibited from removing, suspending or reducing the attorney’s duties, salary or benefits during the 90 days following the installation of a newly elected or appointed council member.
The attorney would be required to belong to the California State Bar but would not need to live in Folsom or California when appointed.
Supporters argue the change would make the city’s chief legal officer more directly accountable to elected representatives rather than an appointed city manager.
In his official ballot argument, Mayor Justin Raithel said Folsom was among a small number of California cities where the city manager held the authority to appoint the city attorney. Sacramento’s City Council, for example, appoints its city attorney.
The proposal would also change the city’s organizational structure by giving the city attorney authority over employees in their office.
A yes vote would transfer authority to appoint, suspend and remove the city attorney to the City Council, subject to the measure’s procedural protections.
A no vote would maintain the city manager’s existing authority over the position.
No official argument against Measure I was submitted.
What would Measure J change about Folsom’s boards and commissions?
Measure J would allow the Folsom City Council to give appointed boards and commissions authority to make certain decisions without requiring separate City Council approval.
Under the existing city charter, boards and commissions were designated as advisory bodies. They could review projects, hold public hearings and recommend actions, but the charter restricted their ability to make binding decisions.
Measure J would remove that restriction and allow the City Council to grant decision-making authority through an ordinance.
The change would not automatically expand the powers of any commission. The council would decide which bodies received additional authority and could later revoke it.
Folsom has six commissions, including the Planning Commission, Historic District Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission.
According to the city’s impartial analysis, the Historic District Commission would be among the bodies most likely to be affected.
The commission reviewed development proposals in Folsom’s Historic District, but binding decisions required City Council approval. Under Measure J, some projects could receive approval from the commission without an additional council vote.
Read more Elk Grove Police did not call mental health team for man who died after restraint
Supporters argue the change would reduce duplicate reviews, speed up routine decisions and resolve conflicting language in the City Charter. Raithel, who signed the official argument in favor of the initiative, said decisions made by commissions would remain subject to appeals to the City Council.
Opponents argue the amendment would reduce accountability by giving unelected commissioners greater authority over city decisions.
Folsom resident Robert Delp, who submitted the official argument against Measure J, said the existing charter appropriately reserved final decision-making authority for elected council members.
In a rebuttal, Delp also raised concerns about the city’s $1,500 appeal fee, arguing it could make challenging commission decisions too expensive for some residents. Supporters countered that the council would retain authority to determine commission responsibilities and that residents could appeal decisions.
The debate also involved litigation over the city’s existing charter language. In his rebuttal to the opposition, Raithel said Delp had sued the city over the issue and argued the amendment could reduce future legal disputes.
A yes vote would allow the City Council to grant decision-making authority to appointed boards and commissions by ordinance.
A no vote would preserve the charter restriction limiting boards and commissions to advisory roles.
What would Measure K change about campaign contribution limits?
Measure K, if approved, would increase the amount an individual could contribute to a City Council candidate from $150 to $500 per election. Folsom voters established the existing $150 limit through a ballot initiative in 1994. The amount had remained unchanged for more than three decades.
If approved, Measure K would allow individuals to contribute an additional $350 per election to a candidate, more than tripling the existing limit.
The proposal would apply only to Folsom City Council elections. It would not change contribution rules for other elections or ballot measure campaigns. The City Council initially considered increasing the limit to $750 but reduced the proposed amount to $500 following public feedback.
Supporters argued the higher limit would help candidates compete against political spending by independent expenditure committees, which can spend money supporting or opposing candidates without coordinating with their campaigns.
In the official ballot argument, former council member Tom Aceituno said the existing limit had become less effective because large donors could direct substantial amounts of money through independent expenditure committees.
Supporters said increasing direct contributions would help candidates raise money from their own supporters while making political spending more transparent.
The proposal also drew concerns earlier in the council’s review process. During a May public hearing, residents argued that substantially higher contribution limits could give wealthier donors greater influence in local elections.
The $500 proposal emerged after council members expressed reservations about the original $750 recommendation.
A yes vote would increase the individual contribution limit for Folsom City Council candidates from $150 to $500 per election.
A no vote would keep the existing $150 contribution limit in place.
No official argument against Measure K was submitted.
Who supports or opposes Folsom Measures I, J and K?
All three measures received endorsements from the Democratic Party of Sacramento County and the Sacramento County Republican Party.
Reform California, a conservative political organization, endorsed Measures I and K but opposed Measure J.
The organization argued Measure J would transfer decision-making power from elected City Council members to appointed commissioners who were not directly accountable to voters.
Raithel signed the official arguments supporting Measures I and J, while Aceituno, who served two terms on the council in the 1990s, signed the argument supporting Measure K.
Resident Robert Delp submitted the official opposition argument against Measure J.
Read more Lodi police arrested Galt man suspected of robbing online sellers at gunpoint
No official opposition arguments were filed against Measures I or K.