(FOLSOM, CA.) — A wave of passionate public testimony swept through Folsom City Hall on May 12, as residents, city workers, and business owners united in opposition to a proposed charter amendment that would have allowed the City Council to privatize essential city services—such as solid waste, water, or parks—without requiring voter approval.
OpGov.news reports the proposal, known as Section 2.07 D in the city’s charter review process, was met with near-unanimous resistance from the dozens who spoke during the public hearing. Many saw the measure as a direct threat to local democracy and a potential gateway to higher rates, reduced service quality, and diminished accountability.
Historically, Section 2.07(D) of the Folsom City Charter requires that any sale, lease (for more than two years), contract, or franchise of a city-owned utility or enterprise to a non-governmental party must be approved by the voters. This provision has given Folsom residents direct control over whether to privatize essential public services such as garbage collection, water, or other city utilities.
For the Folsom community, this requirement was a central point of debate during the meeting:
"This represents a transfer of power from the people of Folsom to the City Council,” said Macy Sherman, representing city workers with Local 3/39. “I think that privatizing public services often results in higher rates, decreased quality of service, and I think it is something that residents should have the right to vote on. This provision within the city charter should be protected,” Sherman added.
Theresa Garcia echoed the sentiment, warning, "If you put this out to the voters, I'm not sure they're going to understand all the power that they're giving up, relative to the decisions that could be made by City Council."
“When you outsource inherently government functions, you end up with higher long-term costs, reduced service quality, and lower accountability,” said speaker Brad Shelton. “Please do not—if you are going to do this—the people, the city, need to vote on it. Yes, you are not technically taking the power away from the voters, but this is why you’re elected. Some decisions are big. You should involve the electorate in that,” Shelton added.
“To many residents, this feels like taking power away from the people. Let’s not forget, the council gets its power from the people,” said candidate Jag Nagendra, who is running for Folsom City Council District 3. “The ability for residents to vote on major decisions involving public assets is an important democratic safeguard that we have. At a time when rebuilding trust should be the top priority for the city, reducing public oversight moves in the wrong direction. Folsom deserves governance that remains transparent, accountable, and grounded in the voices of its residents,” Nagendra said.
Others pointed to the irony of the council celebrating Public Works Week, while considering a measure that could outsource those very services.
"We began this whole thing with celebrating public works. And, I thought that was... it just struck me as something very fascinating," said Adam Murphy, a first-time speaker. “Just this idea that we're celebrating these people and now we're talking about, like, potentially giving up, you know, that to people who may not live in this community and maybe don't care about it as much... .”
The council chamber was filled with applause as speaker after speaker urged the council to preserve the requirement for a public vote before any privatization of city assets. "If these decisions are truly in the public interest, they should earn public approval through a vote. I urge you to reject this proposal and preserve the requirement for voter approval," said resident Shelly Hudson.
After more than an hour of public comment, the council responded decisively. In a series of votes, members agreed not to move the privatization proposal forward, reflecting the overwhelming public sentiment.
District 3 councilmember Sarah Aquino summarized the consensus: "To outsource solid waste or any other service that the city currently provides is a really big deal, and I think that does warrant the public weighing in."
The episode highlighted the power of civic engagement in Folsom, with residents making clear that when it comes to the city’s future, they expect to have the final say.
If you’d like to add or correct anything in this report, feel free to reach out to me or leave a comment below. Have tips or story ideas from around Folsom? Send them to Sarah Denos at sarahkdenos@gmail.com.
0
0
Comments