Roseville council leans toward state‑cap pay model with inflation adjustment for council salaries

The Roseville City Council on Sept. 17 signaled consensus to pursue a charter amendment to increase city council compensation that would default to the state law maximum for similarly sized general‑law cities, include an automatic inflation adjustment, and allow future adjustments by ordinance rather than another charter amendment.

Staff presented two draft charter options. Option 1 would default to the state law cap for a city Roseville’s size (currently $2,550 per month under state law for jurisdictions roughly matching Roseville’s population) and include an annual inflationary adjustment tied to California Government Code section 36516. Option 2 would update the city’s existing charter structure but set a council‑determined fixed amount, which would require future voter action to change. After discussion and public comment, the council informally favored option 1 and directed staff to return with ballot language.

Assistant city attorney Joe Speaker explained that Roseville is a charter city and any charter amendment must be placed on a ballot for voter approval; staff said they would target the November 2026 general election for a potential measure. Speaker also noted that state law changes for general‑law cities (Senate Bill 329) do not apply directly to charter cities like Roseville, but that defaulting to the state limits had been recommended previously by the City’s Charter Review Commission as a transparent benchmark. Under the option the council favored, the initially applicable monthly salary would default to the state maximum for the city’s population band and then may be adjusted annually by an inflation factor similar to the state code’s allowed “inflator.”

Public comment included remarks both supporting higher pay and urging an inflationary mechanism so compensation keeps pace with city growth and the demands of council service. Bonnie Gore, a resident, told the council it is appropriate to ask voters for an increase and to include an inflationary measure: “It was unfortunate that the timing was inappropriate to bring a ballot measure before the voters back in 2020… I have no preference on which way you all decide to do this. I think it would be important to have some type of inflationary measure,” she said.

Councilmembers repeatedly emphasized they do not seek increases for current members personally but seek a structure that attracts candidates and reflects the city’s full‑service responsibilities. After discussion, council members indicated a preference—by a straw poll—for language modeled on option 1 (state cap with inflator). Staff said they would return with the draft ballot language and an impartial analysis in time to meet election filing deadlines and recommended the measure, if placed on the ballot and approved by voters, take effect when the next newly elected council member takes office (anticipated January 2027 for the seats up in 2026).

No final ordinance or charter amendment was adopted at the Sept. 17 meeting; the council provided direction to staff to prepare measure language consistent with option 1 and the inflator approach and to return for approval to put the measure on the Nov. 2026 ballot.