Placer County charter review panel elects chair, directs staff to research supervisor pay, term limits and charter scope

Nathan Herzog was elected chair of the Placer County Charter Review Committee during the group’s inaugural 2025 meeting, and the committee gave staff a list of research assignments that will frame potential charter amendments.

Ben Niels, a principal management analyst with the county executive office who opened the meeting, explained staff would lead the research and return analysis within roughly 30–60 days. “At the end of the discussion today, what I plan to do is recap all the areas which you would like for us to do our homework on, and then just ensure that we have that accurate through a vote,” he said.

Members nominated Herzog and voted to confirm him. Chris Janzen nominated Herzog and Troy Alessi seconded the nomination; members conducted a vocal and roll‑call vote that approved the chairmanship. The committee then turned to an agenda of items it asked staff to research and report back on.

Key topics the committee assigned to staff review include whether and how the charter could be amended to: clarify community plan authority; impose term limits for supervisors; revise the formula and process that sets supervisor pay; change the mechanism for filling vacated supervisor seats; define residency requirements for elected officials; and consider the county executive’s authority over department head appointment, suspension and removal.

County counsel Clayton Cook urged the committee to frame research requests with the constitutional and statutory limits in mind. Cook summarized the constitutional framework that governs charter authority and cautioned that some subjects—particularly those already covered by state law, such as affordable‑housing mandates and RHNA allocations—may be legally constrained. “As you look through [Article XI, Section 4 of the California Constitution], if it fits within this section, then that is an area that we can put in the charter,” Cook said.

Committee members pressed for clarity on a few prominent items. Several members asked staff to document the three counties historically used to set Placer’s supervisor pay — Sacramento, Nevada and El Dorado — and to explain the formula and alternatives. Dan Woodward noted recent scrutiny of Sacramento’s pay process and said Placer should re‑examine whether voters or a new local formula should determine supervisor compensation. ‘‘I just think we should bring this back to the county,’’ Woodward said.

The committee also asked staff to assemble neighboring counties’ charters and prior charter‑committee recommendations, to review judicial decisions affecting charter authority, and to clarify statutory questions such as the county seat and redistricting constraints.

The chair and committee agreed on a work plan that includes further public outreach: four additional regional meetings with online participation and a final meeting to present findings and potential draft recommendations. The vote to schedule those meetings passed on a roll call before the committee adjourned.

The committee’s next steps are staff research and circulating reports to the committee in the coming weeks; the group will reconvene in public sessions to discuss staff findings and public input before making formal recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.