The Sacramento Bee editorial board endorsed all three Folsom ballot measures that would reshape how the city hires its top lawyer, empowers its commissions and raises campaign contribution limits.

Measures I, J and K appear on the Nov. 3 ballot after the Folsom City Council voted July 14 to place them before voters, according to the Bee's voter guide. Each needs a simple majority to pass.

The measures originated with Folsom's 2026 Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee, which initially recommended eight amendments. The council narrowed the list to three.

Measure I: city attorney oversight

Measure I would transfer authority to appoint, suspend and remove the city attorney from the city manager to the City Council. Under the existing charter, the city attorney serves as a department head appointed by the city manager.

The measure includes procedural protections. The city attorney would be entitled to a public hearing, with at least 10 days of published notice, before any removal or suspension vote. The council also could not remove or reduce the attorney's duties, salary or benefits during the 90 days after a new council member takes office.

Mayor Justin Raithel said in his official ballot argument that Folsom was among a small number of California cities where the city manager held that authority. No official argument against Measure I was submitted.

Measure J: commission powers

Measure J would let the City Council grant appointed boards and commissions authority to make certain binding decisions. Currently, commissions serve only in an advisory role under the charter.

The city's impartial analysis, written by City Attorney Sari Myers Dierking, identified the Historic District Commission as the body most likely to be affected. Development proposals in the Historic District now require separate City Council approval. Under Measure J, some projects could receive approval from the commission alone.

Folsom resident Robert Delp, who submitted the official argument against Measure J, said the existing charter appropriately reserved final decision-making for elected council members. Delp also raised concerns about the city's $1,500 appeal fee, arguing it could make challenging commission decisions too expensive for some residents.

Reform California, a conservative political organization, endorsed Measures I and K but opposed Measure J on similar grounds.

Measure K: campaign contribution limits

Measure K would raise the individual campaign contribution limit for City Council races from $150 to $500 per election. Folsom voters set the $150 cap through a 1994 ballot initiative, and it has not changed in more than three decades.

The council initially considered a $750 limit but reduced it to $500 after public feedback. During a May public hearing, residents argued higher limits could give wealthier donors greater influence.

Former council member Tom Aceituno, who served two terms in the 1990s, signed the official argument in favor. He said the existing limit had become less effective because large donors could direct money through independent expenditure committees. No official argument against Measure K was submitted.

Endorsements and one dissent

All three measures received endorsements from both the Democratic Party of Sacramento County and the Sacramento County Republican Party.

Councilmember Sarah Aquino, who is running for reelection in the 3rd District, cast the lone dissenting vote when the proposals advanced in June, citing the increased election costs. The city estimated it would cost $107,400 to place all three measures on the ballot, up from an initial estimate of about $9,000 per measure, according to the Bee.